In what circumstances will a court order increased costs on the basis of the importance of the environmental review application?

Similarly, in Court v. Alberta (Environmental Appeal Board) (2003), 345 A.R. 179, 2003 ABQB 912, the applicant had argued for increased costs on the basis of the history of the proceedings and the necessity of counsel, the complexity of the proceedings and issues, the importance of the issues and case, the necessity of the judicial review application, the result of the judicial review application and the relative financial resources of the parties. Mr. Justice McIntyre rejected most of these grounds but did allow increased costs on the basis of the importance of the issues: In my opinion, however, one factor, namely, the importance of the issues and case, does justify an award of costs in excess of the default scale. The case is legitimately characterized as one of general public importance, relating as it does to public participation in the environmental review process.