CONNECT FIRST AND SERVUS CREDIT UNION LTD v ELITE STORAGE NORTH EDMONTON LP

This decision concerned the determination of costs following a successful Application arising out of broader receivership proceedings. In the underlying decision, one of the Defendants, Robert Cramers (“Cramers”) successfully applied to remove BCCQ Global Holdings Ltd. (“BCCQ”) from a Consent Receivership Order (the “Order”) that had been obtained ex parte by Alberta Finance & Mortgage Corporation (“AFMC”). Justice Marion had directed the parties to attempt to agree on costs. When that failed, written submissions were invited for a judicial determination of the appropriate costs award.

Justice Marion emphasized that although costs are typically governed by Schedule C, this instant case warranted departure from that framework. The Application was a moderately complex commercial matter involving the variation of the ex parte Order with significant implications for corporate control and ongoing disputes between the parties. Critically, AFMC had breached its duty of full and frank disclosure when obtaining the Order, including failing to properly explain the contractual and factual context to the Court. The Court found that this misconduct materially affected the original decision and unnecessarily interfered with BCCQ’s operations, thereby justifying enhanced costs. At the same time, the Court found that Cramers’ unexplained delay in bringing the Application tempered the ultimate quantum awarded and must be accounted for.

Marion J. then held that the Defendant, Cramers was entitled to enhanced costs for the successful Application and awarded him $15,000 plus GST (together with disbursements) as a lump‑sum Cost Award, payable forthwith by AFMC. The Court also awarded $2,000 plus GST for the separate process of determining costs. While Cramers sought approximately 50% solicitor‑client indemnification, and AFMC argued that column 1 of Schedule C should apply because the relief sought was declaratory, the Court selected a midpoint that reflected proportionality and fairness.

The Application was governed principally by Rules 10.29-10.33 of the Rules, which set out the discretionary factors for awarding costs, including success, complexity, importance of the issues, proportionality, and party conduct. Justice Marion held that Schedule C alone was inadequate to reflect those factors in this case and relied on an appellate authority permitting lump‑sum or percentage‑based costs where necessary to achieve a reasonable and proportionate result.