GRECO v CALGARY (CITY)

The Court ruled on costs following Judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs.

After reviewing prior authorities, Justice Reed confirmed that a costs assessment is a discretionary and contextual exercise. The Court emphasized that indemnity awards, such as those granted in McAllister v Calgary (City), 2021 ABCA 25, are not the default and should not be presumed. Reed J. also noted that Calderbank offers do not automatically result in doubled or enhanced costs, identifying a number of factors relevant to their assessment.

Justice Reed addressed the Defendants in two groups, one being the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Limited, Calgary Exhibition & Stampede, and Weadick Properties Ltd. (the “Stampede Defendants”) and the other being the City of Calgary (the “City”).

With respect to the Stampede Defendants, the Court awarded partial indemnity for 30% of their assessed solicitor-client costs (distinguished from solicitor-and-own client indemnity) from commencement of the Action to the date of their Calderbank offer. From that date forward, Justice Reed awarded double costs amounting to 60% of assessed solicitor-client costs, on the basis that said Calderbank offer was valid and effective.

In contrast, the Court awarded the City costs in accordance with Column 3 of Schedule C, plus disbursements and other charges. Justice Reed found that the City’s costs in this Action were not comparable to those in Lehodey v Calgary (City), 2025 ABKB 76, and further concluded that the City’s Calderbank offer did not constitute a reasonable and genuine compromise.

The Court directed the parties to resolve all quantum issues in accordance with the decision, failing which costs were to be assessed by an Assessment Officer.