Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Both the Stampede Defendants and the City of Calgary were found completely successful in defeating Ms. Greco's claims, entitling them to costs of the action.

• A Calderbank Offer delivered on October 25, 2024, proposed nearly all the relief Ms. Greco sought at trial, and her rejection of it was found to be unreasonable.

• Schedule C, Column 1 costs, as proposed by Ms. Greco, were deemed neither proportional nor reasonable given the decade-long litigation and the significance of the claims.

• Proportionality and reasonableness governed the costs assessment, with the Court declining to follow Grimes to the extent it was inconsistent with Court of Appeal jurisprudence in McAllister, Barkwell, and related decisions.

• The City's reliance on the Calderbank Offer for enhanced costs was rejected because its contribution was grossly disproportionate to the benefit it sought — effectively "piggybacking" on the Stampede Defendants' offer.

• Costs for the Stampede Defendants were set at 30% of assessed solicitor-client costs pre-Calderbank and 60% post-Calderbank, while the City received Schedule C, Column 3 costs without any multiplier.

The underlying dispute and parties involved

Christina Marie Greco brought an action against the City of Calgary ("City"), Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Limited, Calgary Exhibition & Stampede, and Weadick Properties Ltd. (collectively, the "Stampede Defendants") before the Court of King's Bench of Alberta. Ms. Greco's claims were in nuisance and for a declaration. The original Reasons for Judgment were issued on October 31, 2025, and reported at 2025 ABKB 629 (the "Decision"), in which Ms. Greco's claim was dismissed. The present ruling, issued March 3, 2026, by the Honourable Justice D.J. Reed, addresses the costs consequences of that dismissal. The background facts are contained in the Decision and were not repeated in this costs ruling.

The litigation history

The action had been in existence for over 10 years. There were seven days of Part 5 Questioning and seven days of trial, including final argument, with five lay witnesses and no experts. Although damages were pleaded in Ms. Greco's Statement of Claim, no amount was claimed and no evidence was led in relation to any damages. The only relief sought at trial was injunctive and declaratory. The Court found in the Decision that Ms. Greco's claim for declaratory relief was an abuse of process and ought to have been commenced by way of judicial review. The evidentiary record was historically complex but only moderately onerous, and the law of nuisance was well settled.

The Calderbank Offer and prior settlement proposals

Ms. Greco rejected three settlement offers from the Stampede Defendants over the course of the litigation. The First Settlement Offer was issued on June 16, 2023, following mediation, in which the Stampede Defendants offered to purchase Ms. Greco's house for a price generated by an agreed-upon appraiser, plus $120,000 to account for moving costs, upgrading expenses to a new residence, and legal costs. The Second Settlement Offer was made on October 9, 2024, proposing trees, shrubs, and other plantings on both sides of the fence of a similar nature to those existing along other parts of the Spiller Road fence line, a protected setback zone with a constructed jersey barrier perimeter, a dispute resolution mechanism, and the payment of $40,000 for legal costs. Neither the First Settlement Offer nor the Second Settlement Offer was made on notice that it would be relied upon for costs, and both were made without prejudice.
The pivotal Calderbank Offer was delivered jointly by the Stampede Defendants and the City via letter on October 25, 2024, approximately four weeks before trial. It proposed: (a) the permanent closure of the Spiller Gate; (b) the planting of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping at the former location of the Spiller Gate and in other areas as appropriate; (c) the establishment of a protected zone within the 30-metre setback, using jersey barriers, which shall not be used for any purpose other than landscaping or maintenance of the setback area, or in the event of an emergency; (d) the appointment of a designated representative for all communications with Ms. Greco, together with a dispute-resolution process involving an appointed mediator, whose decisions shall be final, binding, and not subject to appeal; and (e) payment in the amount of $40,000.00 by the Stampede Defendants and $10,000.00 by the City. The Calderbank Offer required a full release of all defendants and proposed discontinuance of the action on a without costs basis. Ms. Greco was put on notice that the Defendants would seek double costs for two sets of costs if the offer was not accepted and the claim was dismissed, and that rejection could result in a costs award of at least 40% and possibly as much as 100% of solicitor-client costs. The Calderbank Offer was left open until November 1, 2024. Trial commenced November 18, 2024. Ms. Greco did not accept it.

The parties' positions on costs

Ms. Greco argued that the Defendants should receive a single set of costs under Column 1 of Schedule C of the Rules, totalling $26,000.00 exclusive of disbursements. She characterized the action as a straightforward claim in nuisance and for a declaration and described it as uncomplicated. She submitted that her own legal fees, which she stipulated total $216,952.50, provide some guidance. She placed great reliance on the case of Grimes v Governors of the University of Lethbridge, 2023 ABKB 432, and argued that if the Defendants were entitled to enhanced costs, they should not be based upon a percentage of actual costs.
The Stampede Defendants argued that Schedule C costs would be woefully inadequate, amounting to approximately 5% indemnification of the legal fees they actually incurred. They provided information indicating they had incurred $673,001.50 in solicitor and own client costs, with disbursements of $24,438.06 exclusive of GST. Citing McAllister v Calgary (City), 2021 ABCA 25, they sought 40% of their solicitor-and-own-client indemnity costs up to the date of the Calderbank Offer, and 80% thereafter. In the alternative, they sought a lump-sum award of $300,000.00 plus disbursements.
The City, which relied on in-house salaried counsel to conduct this matter, argued that Schedule C, Column 1 suggested a costs award of $30,782.50 plus disbursements, which it described as woefully insufficient. Relying on Lehodey v Calgary (City), 2025 ABKB 76, the City instead sought costs under Column 3 with a three-times multiplier. It further sought to double its assessable costs after the date of its Calderbank Offer. In total, the City claimed $197,727.09, inclusive of disbursements.

The Court's approach to costs law

Justice Reed adopted and applied the costs framework set out in his earlier decision in Prevatt v Prevatt, 2024 ABKB 386, drawing on McAllister, Barkwell v McDonald, 2023 ABCA 87, and related Court of Appeal authorities. The Court confirmed that costs awards are discretionary and must be guided by proportionality and the factors in Rule 10.33 of the Alberta Rules of Court. While it was frequently said that a rough rule of thumb is that a costs award should reflect 40 to 50% of solicitor and client costs, the Court emphasized that McAllister style indemnity awards are not the default, nor presumed. The Court must undertake its own analysis in each case. The ultimate question is whether the quantum represents an amount the losing party should reasonably be expected to pay the successful party. The Court declined to follow Grimes to the extent it was inconsistent with the jurisprudence from the Court of Appeal, noting that Grimes, being a decision of the Court of King's Bench, is subordinate to the extant Court of Appeal authorities.

Analysis of the Stampede Defendants' costs entitlement

The Court found that a McAllister partial indemnity approach was appropriate for the Stampede Defendants. However, considering the amount claimed and all relevant factors, 40% indemnity was found to be too high, and some reduction was required to properly meet the requirements of reasonableness and proportionality. The Stampede Defendants were completely successful, and the issues raised were of significant importance to them. Had Ms. Greco succeeded on the injunctive relief, on the facts before the Court, the relief sought would have posed a substantial financial and operational threat to their critical business operations. However, the action was not overly complex, the law of nuisance was well settled, and the Court did not accept the Stampede Defendants' submission that there was misconduct or other conduct sufficient to justify an enhanced costs award. The credibility issues and related evidence were described as concerning but warranting only modest impact on costs at best.
The Court found that the First Settlement Offer and Second Settlement Offer were not sufficient to attract costs consequences. The Calderbank Offer, however, met all five criteria for effectiveness: it was a reasonable, genuine compromise; it gave a cost advantage if accepted; adequate time for consideration was provided; the offer was unreasonably rejected; and the party making the offer fared better than if the offer was accepted. The Court agreed that the Calderbank Offer gave Ms. Greco nearly all the relief she sought at trial against the Stampede Defendants and, in fact, more than the Court could reasonably have granted with respect to the dispute-resolution clause and certain other nuances.

Analysis of the City's costs entitlement

The City stood on a different footing for costs than the Stampede Defendants. The City did not retain external counsel but instead relied on salaried, in-house lawyers, and Schedule C must guide any costs award. The Court rejected the City's attempt to analogize this case to Lehodey, where the underlying decision concerned a challenge to the City's 2024 general rezoning bylaw directly affecting the owners of 311,570 residential properties, and the complexity of the issues was significantly greater. The Court found that this case simply did not rise to that level when the requisite level of costs indemnification was considered.
The City's position on the Calderbank Offer was found to be much weaker than that of the Stampede Defendants. The benefit the City sought to obtain from its contribution was grossly disproportionate to the benefit that would have accrued to Ms. Greco had she accepted it. The City's offer was not a reasonable, genuine compromise of the claims made against it, which related to development and development law. For minimal consideration, the City effectively "piggybacked" on the Stampede Defendants' offer to obtain a full settlement and release. The Court declined to award any multiplier of costs to the City on this basis.

The ruling and overall outcome

Justice Reed awarded costs in favour of both sets of Defendants, who were completely successful at trial. The Stampede Defendants were awarded 30% of their assessed solicitor-client costs (to be distinguished from solicitor-and-own-client indemnity costs) from the commencement of the action to October 25, 2024, the date of the Calderbank Offer. From that date forward, they were awarded 60% of their assessed solicitor-client costs, reflecting the doubling effect of the Calderbank Offer. In addition, they are entitled to their assessed disbursements and applicable GST. The City was awarded its costs of the action pursuant to Column 3 of Schedule C of the Rules, together with its disbursements and applicable charges, but without any multiplier. The Court noted that applying a multiplier in the City's case could result in over-indemnification, which could amount to a punitive award. The exact total dollar amounts payable to each Defendant were not fixed in this ruling. The parties were directed to attempt to agree upon and resolve all quantum issues in accordance with the decision, failing which they are directed to proceed with the assessment process under the Rules. The Court noted that this award is not punitive but compensatory in nature.