Is a court bound by law to award costs in favour of the successful party against the unsuccessful party?

In Scramstad v. Stannard, 1997 CarswellAlta 1215, Girgulis J. said: 8 ...While it may be usual to award costs to the successful party against the losing party, that common award is not invariable and is always subject to the court's discretion. It is not unusual for costs to be dealt with in some other fashion and so long as the discretion is exercised judicially, the award of costs ought not to be impeached ... But because something is common or usual does not in any way restrict the court's discretion. Nor do normal or usual awards of costs make rules of law or binding precedents. Where discretion is given by statute or by the rules, or as here, by both, it is not to be cut down or eroded by implication; it can only be restricted by legislation, or by rules, or by principles of law which bind the court's discretion. Here there are no statutory restrictions; ... there are no limiting rules, and there is no rule of law which requires a court to exercise its discretion to award costs in favour of the successful party against the unsuccessful party and, not infrequently, awards of costs are made to the contrary...