Executive summary: key legal and evidentiary issues

• Cramers was acknowledged by AFMC as substantially successful in his Application to remove BCCQ from the Consent Receivership Order, establishing prima facie entitlement to costs

• AFMC failed to properly and fully explain the situation to the Court at the ex parte hearing, and the Court found that proper disclosure would have materially affected its decision

• Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court was found to not adequately address the complexity, party conduct, and reasonable or expected costs of the Application, warranting a lump sum approach

• Quantifying the real amount claimed or at issue proved difficult because the Application sought removal of BCCQ from the Consent Receivership Order without any specific monetary amount involved

• Cramers' delay in bringing the Application was "unexplained and of concern" and was accounted for in reducing the costs award below his requested amount

• AFMC's costs position ($675 to $3,138.06 under Schedule C) was deemed extremely low and unrealistic by the Court

Background and parties involved

This case arises from a broader commercial dispute heard in the Court of King's Bench of Alberta between Connect First and Servus Credit Union Ltd. as the Plaintiff, and several defendants including Elite Storage North Edmonton LP, Elite Storage North Edmonton GP Ltd, BCCQ Global Holdings Ltd., Bodnar Capital Corp., Cameron Colby Quilliam, Robert Cramers, and Conrad Bodnar. On December 5, 2025, Justice M.A. Marion issued reasons in the underlying application (Connect First v Elite Storage North Edmonton LP, 2025 ABKB 718), in which Robert Cramers was successful in challenging the inclusion of BCCQ in a Consent Receivership Order. The present decision, dated February 24, 2026, deals exclusively with the determination of costs following that successful application.

The dispute over costs

The parties were unable to agree on costs within the 30-day window set by the Court, and a written process for costs was established. Cramers sought $27,625.83, representing 50% indemnification of his costs incurred to date, encompassing both the Application itself and his costs incurred to a certain point in the post-Application costs process. He relied on Uhuegbulem v Balbi, 2025 ABKB 318 and McAllister v Calgary (City), 2021 ABCA 25, and the factors under rules 10.29, 10.30, 10.31 and 10.33 of the Alberta Rules of Court. Cramers pointed to his success in the Application, the amount at issue, the critical importance of the Application to BCCQ's continuation as a going concern with its current management, the importance of the Application to him as guarantor (to an amount of $1,875,000), as a director, as a 50% shareholder of BCCQ, and as a signatory to the Forbearance Agreement and the Consent Receivership Order, the complex nature of the Application, the conduct of AFMC in obtaining the Order ex parte, and the conduct of AFMC in including BCCQ as a debtor in the Consent Receivership Order.

AFMC's position on costs

AFMC acknowledged that Cramers was substantially successful and entitled to costs but argued that Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court should govern the quantum. AFMC contended that Column 1 of Schedule C should apply because the relief sought was declaratory, resulting in an amount of $675 for item 7(1) (contested application) or possibly $1,350 for item 8(1) (contested application where a brief is required). Alternatively, AFMC argued the Schedule C column should be based on $1,875,000 (the amount of Cramers' guarantee), and pointed out that even using Column 5 of Schedule C, the costs would only be $3,138.06. AFMC further argued that enhanced costs were not appropriate, that there was no evidence as to why removing BCCQ from the Consent Receivership Order was important, that the matter was not complex, that neither party's conduct shortened the action, and that Cramers delayed in bringing the Application, which caused the Receiver to incur costs in the BCCQ receivership unnecessarily. AFMC argued that granting Cramers' claimed costs would unjustifiably penalize AFMC.

The court's analysis of key factors

Justice Marion considered several factors under the Alberta Rules of Court and the general costs principles summarized in Uhuegbulem in assessing costs. As to success, the Court noted that Cramers was successful in the Application and prima facie entitled to costs, as acknowledged by AFMC. Regarding the amount claimed and received, the receivership involved over $5 million and Cramers' guarantee was only $1,875,000; however, the claim in the Application was to have BCCQ removed from the Consent Receivership Order without any specific monetary amount involved, making it difficult to quantify the real amount at issue and making Schedule C less appropriate. The Court noted its discretion to move beyond Column 1 even where only declaratory relief is sought, relying on R&R Consilium Inc v Talbot, 2019 ABQB 275, and found it was not appropriate to treat the Application solely as a matter of declaratory relief, as it was about BCCQ's future operations and control over its assets. On the importance of the issues, the Court noted that Cramers has a 50% interest in BCCQ and is a director, and that a key issue between the parties is the ongoing control and management of BCCQ, which is the subject of ongoing arbitral or other disputes between them. The Consent Receivership Order was described as a decisive ex parte blow in that context. The Application was characterized as a moderately complex commercial matter involving a later application to vary an ex parte order, akin to a special application, further complicated by supplemental briefs on the law relating to the contractual exercise of discretion as set out in Wastech Services Ltd v Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 2021 SCC 7, as potentially applied in the context of a forbearance agreement with a consent receivership order.

Conduct of the parties

As to Cramers' conduct, the Court found that his delay was only partially explained by retaining new counsel and the Court's schedule, noting that one would have expected him to move immediately upon learning of the Consent Receivership Order. His delay was described as "unexplained and of concern." As to AFMC's conduct, the Court found that breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure which leads to an unwarranted and overreaching order is serious and will often engage enhanced costs. The Court found that AFMC breached the default notice requirement under the Forbearance Agreement, appeared to unnecessarily and superfluously add BCCQ to the Consent Receivership Order in the exercise of its contractual discretion, and then at the ex parte hearing, failed to properly and fully explain the situation to the Court or fully answer the Court's questions. The Court found that had AFMC properly explained matters, it would have materially affected the Court's decision and may very well have caused the Court to require notice to be given to Cramers. In the Court's view, had notice been given, it is unlikely there would have been a receivership order against BCCQ under the Consent Receivership Order. The Court concluded that AFMC irregularly and unnecessarily lengthened the underlying action against BCCQ and interfered with BCCQ's management and operation and Cramers' role therein, and that costs beyond the ordinary Schedule C are appropriate.

Distinction between pre-application and post-application costs

The Court drew an important distinction between costs incurred before and after the Application hearing. Based on Cramers' submitted bill of costs, the fees incurred related to the Application ended on December 2, 2025, with post-Application costs totalling $14,472 before GST, leaving $37,860 before GST in legal costs incurred in respect of the Application. The Court found this latter amount to be a reasonable amount of costs incurred in the unique circumstances of the Application. Notably, despite the Court's direction, AFMC did not provide its reasonably incurred costs for the Court to use as a comparison.

Ruling and overall outcome

Using Cramers' position that 50% indemnity of reasonably incurred actual costs is appropriate, the amount would have been $18,930 (50% of $37,860). However, considering the totality of the circumstances, including Cramers' delay in bringing the Application, the Court found a lump sum amount of $15,000 (plus GST) to be a reasonable and appropriate cost award for the Application, together with the claimed disbursements and other charges, which were not separately disputed by AFMC. Regarding the costs of determining costs, the Court found Cramers to have had substantial success overall, and noted that AFMC's position was extremely low and unrealistic. The costs determination was not overly complex, and Cramers' costs incurred for the costs process (likely in excess of $15,000) were found to be disproportionate to the amount at issue. Using Schedule C item 8(1) as a rough gauge, which indicated a range from $1,350 for Column 1 to $2,700 for Column 5, the Court awarded a lump sum of $2,000 (plus GST) in favour of Cramers for the determination of costs, subject to any settlement offers that either party could provide within one week of the reasons. Both costs awards — $15,000 (plus GST) plus disbursements and other costs for the Application, and $2,000 (plus GST) for the costs process — were ordered payable by AFMC to Cramers forthwith. The exact total amount inclusive of GST and disbursements was not specified in the decision.