Successful Party Awarded Costs in Federal Court Case

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260629 Docket: T-1811-22 Citation: 2026 FC 796 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, June 29, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Duchesne BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE COUNCIL OF THE HURON-[NAME] OF WENDAKE Respondent

ORDER AS TO COSTS [ 1 ] The Applicant’s proceeding was dismissed by a judgment of the Court dated April 21, 2026 (2026 FC 532). The Respondent claimed its costs in the proceedings, and the parties could not agree on the amount of costs to be awarded, who should pay them, or to whom they should be paid. The parties submitted their written submissions on costs in accordance with the Court’s directions in paragraphs 92 to 94 of the Judgment of April 21, 2026. [ 2 ] The Respondent claims $14,037.34 in fees and disbursements. The Applicant, for his part, does not dispute that the Respondent should be awarded the costs in the proceeding, but he does challenge the amount of fees and disbursements claimed. In the Applicant’s view, the appropriate amount of costs payable is $8,200 in fees, and no disbursements. [ 3 ] This Order determines the costs in the proceeding in light of the parties’ submissions and the applicable law.

I. The Respondent’s Submissions [ 4 ] The Respondent, relying on a table of expenditures and an affidavit [NAME] the submissions on costs and disbursements, submits that it should be awarded costs totalling $14,037.34. This amount comprises a request for 62 units from Column 2 of Table 2 to Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules [the Rules ], in addition to disbursements totalling $1,637.34. Each unit from Column 2 of Table 2 to Tariff B is currently fixed at $200. [ 5 ] The calculation of the 62 units claimed takes into account the assessable services identified in Items 2, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25 and 26 of Table 2 to Tariff B, and the assessable services listed in Items 8 and 14 of Table 4 to Tariff B. [ 6 ] The Respondent acknowledges that the Court has full discretion when awarding costs and that this discretion must be exercised judicially ( [NAME] v [NAME] , 2019 FC 1119 at paras 6–8). It argues that the mechanism that applies by default to calculate and award costs is Tariff B of the Rules . [ 7 ] The Respondent argues that it should be entitled to its costs given that it was successful in the proceeding and that the number of units claimed for each of the assessable services referred to and the amounts claimed as disbursements were reasonable and necessary to this litigation. [ 8 ] The Respondent notes that the Applicant, in his Memorandum of Fact and Law and during the hearing of the case, raised multiple grounds of challenge that were not argued in his Notice of Application and that the Court found to be inadmissible. It notes that the Applicant also brought a motion to strike allegations and exhibits on February 23, 2023, which the Court dismissed in its order dated June 28, 2023. [ 9 ] The Respondent submits that, despite its successes, it nevertheless had to analyze and respond to all the arguments the Applicant put forward in support of his application and his motion. It argues that these elements increased the amount of work and costs for the Respondent, in addition to unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings. It argues that these factors weigh in favour of awarding costs to the respondent. [ 10 ] The Respondent explains that the number of units claimed for the assessable services described in Items 19 and 20 of Table 2 is somewhat higher because two counsel were present at the hearing. It further explains that the unit claimed under Item 24 of Table 2 is routinely allowed notwithstanding the absence of evidence ( [NAME] v [NAME] of [NAME] , 2023 FCA 57 at para 15). [ 11 ] The Respondent also explains that the units under Item 25 of Table 2 and Item 14 of Table 4 are claimed since it was required to prepare and file its submissions on costs because the Applicant failed to follow up on the Respondent’s attempt to settle out of court. The Respondent further explains that the units claimed under Item 26 of Table 2 are related to documents and letters that it had to prepare and file for the judicial review to proceed.

II. The Applicant’s Submissions [ 12 ] The Applicant does not dispute that the Respondent should be entitled to its costs as determined by the Court. He takes issue, however, with the number of units claimed by the Respondent in light of the specifics of the proceeding and the case law. In the Applicant’s opinion, the Respondent is entitled to 41 units from Column 2 of Table 2 to Tariff B, and no disbursements. [ 13 ] The Applicant challenges the 8 units claimed by the Respondent under Item 11 of Table 2 (preparation and service of affidavits) regarding the affidavits of [APPELLANT]. The Applicant submits that Mr. [APPELLANT] was the Respondent’s [NAME], that he was the Respondent’s employee, and that Item 11 of Table 2 does not apply to an assessable service with respect to the affidavit of the [NAME]. He bases his argument on the wording of Item 11 of Table 2, which describes the assessable service as “Preparation and service of [NAME] affidavits, for each affidavit”. The Applicant argues that Mr. [APPELLANT] is not an “[NAME]” within the meaning of Item 11. [ 14 ] The Applicant also challenges the allowance of 4 units under Item 20 of Table 2 for fees paid to the Respondent’s [NAME]. He submits that the Court does not have the authority to award these specific costs in the absence of an order to that effect ( [COMPANY] v [NAME]) , 2013 FC 862 at para 32 [ [NAME] ]). [ 15 ] The Applicant challenges the allowance of 2 units under Item 26 of Table 2 for the preparation and filing of documents of a federal board, commission or [NAME] tribunal under Rule 317 of the Rules . It argues that this claim is already included in the request for 8 units under Item 15 of Table 2. The Applicant further notes that Item 15 of Table 2 (formerly Item 2 of Tariff B) concerns the preparation of all the Respondent’s records, including the Respondent’s record filed under Rule 317 ( [NAME] ([NAME]) v [COMPANY] , 2020 FCA 173 at para 33 [ [NAME] ]). On the same subject, the Applicant submits that the allowance of units under Item 25 of Table 2 for the preparation and filing of documents under Rule 317 would result in double indemnification in relation to the units already requested by the Applicant under Item 14 of Table 2 and should not be allowed. [ 16 ] The Applicant challenges the allowance of 2 units under Item 26 of Table 2 for the preparation and filing of a letter dated March 28, 2024, concerning an informal request for interlocutory relief. First, he argues that Table 2 deals with applications, not motions, and [NAME], he submits that the record shows that the Respondent did not file a letter dated March 28, 2024, with the Registry. [ 17 ] The Applicant also challenges the allowance of 5 units under Item 14 of Table 4 (motions) for the assessment of costs because it would result in double indemnification, since a single request for assessment of costs for the application and the motions was made at the same time by the Respondent. [ 18 ] The Applicant challenges all the disbursements claimed by the Respondent. He disputes the Respondent’s invoice of $1,031.08 for use of the “[NAME]” software, which the Applicant argues is a search of the judicial docket and does not constitute legal research ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2006 FCA 286 at para 9). [ 19 ] He also argues that disbursements for photocopying costs are not recoverable in an order as to costs unless the photocopies in question were filed with the Court for the proceeding ( [COMPANY] v [NAME] (The Ship) , 2013 FC 1263 at para 39 [ [NAME] ]) and that the cost of photocopies for the client are not recoverable ( [NAME] v [NAME]) , 2008 FC 693 at para 115). The costs of binding, tabs and binders and the work of assembling documents that were not filed with the Court also cannot be subject to an order for costs ( [NAME] v Minde , [2009] F.C.J. No. 489, sub nom Minde v [NAME] , 2009 FCA 128). [ 20 ] Finally, disbursements for restaurants and parking should not be allowed, given that the hearing of the case took place in the city where counsel for the Respondent’s office is located ( Canada (Attorney General) v [COMPANY] , 2008 FC 980 at para 13).

III. Legal Framework [ 21 ] Costs are governed by the rules in Part 11 of the Rules and the applicable case law. [ 22 ] The Rules set out certain primary principles governing costs in Rule 400 and following. Rule 400(1) provides that the Court has full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs and the determination of by whom they are to be paid. Rule 400(3) of the Rules sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Court may, but is not required to, consider in making its determination as to costs. These factors include the outcome of the proceeding, the importance and complexity of the issues, the amount of work, and any conduct of a party that tended to shorten or unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the proceeding. [ 23 ] Rule 400(4) provides that the Court may fix all or part of any costs by reference to Tariff B and may award a lump sum in lieu of, or in addition to, any assessed costs. Rule 407 provides that, unless the Court orders otherwise, party-and-party costs are to be assessed in accordance with column 2 of the applicable tables to Tariff B. [ 24 ] In all [NAME] respects, the applicable principles were well explained by Chief Justice Paul Crampton, as he then was, in paragraphs 19 to 35 of [COMPANY] v [COMPANY] , 2021 FC 186 ( [NAME] ). There is no need to repeat them in detail here. It is sufficient to understand that the [NAME] objectives underlying an award of costs are to (i) provide indemnification for costs associated with successfully pursuing a valid legal right or defending an unfounded claim, (ii) penalize a party who has refused a reasonable settlement offer, and (iii) sanction behaviour that increases the duration and expense of litigation, or is otherwise unreasonable or vexatious ( [NAME] at para 19 and the case law cited therein). [ 25 ] Disbursements are governed by subsections 1(3) and (4) of Tariff B. The rule states that no disbursement, [NAME] than fees paid to the Registry, are to be assessed or allowed unless it is reasonable and it is established by affidavit or by the solicitor appearing on the assessment that the disbursement was made or is payable by the party.

IV. Analysis [ 26 ] As explained in paragraph 30 of [NAME] , the general rule is that the successful party is entitled to have its costs, even if it was not successful in respect of each and every argument it pursued. The parties do not dispute this principle or suggest that the Respondent should not be entitled to costs. [ADDRESS] does not consider that this case warrants a departure from the general rule in this regard. [ 27 ] The Applicant will therefore be ordered to pay the costs awarded to the Respondent. [ 28 ] It is appropriate in this case to apply Tariff B of the Rules . Tariff B was amended in December 2025 to simplify the calculation of costs and include a broader list of procedural events that affect the costs incurred. In this case, there is no reason suggested by either party to award costs on a lump sum basis rather than under Tariff B. [ 29 ] The costs of an application for judicial review are set out in Table 2 to Tariff B. The Respondent seeks a total of 29 undisputed units for the services covered by Items 2, 15, 17, 19, 24, 25 and 26 of Tariff B. These 29 claimed units are justified and will be allowed. [ 30 ] There remains the issue of the claims based on Items 11, 20 and 26 of Table 2 to Tariff B and the disbursements, and of Table 4 to Tariff B.

V. Item 11 of Table 2 to Tariff B [ 31 ] The Respondent claims 4 units for each of the four affidavits included in its Respondent’s Record, for a total of 16 units. The affidavits at issue are the affidavits from [NAME] and [APPELLANT] and two affidavits from [APPELLANT]. The Applicant objects to the claim for 8 units, arguing that Mr. [RESPONDENT] was the Respondent’s [NAME] and not an “[NAME]” referred to in the description of the assessable service set out in Item 11 of Table 2 to Tariff B. [ 32 ] The Applicant has not persuaded me of the merit of his argument. [ 33 ] The modern approach to statutory interpretation requires that that the words of a statute be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament ( [COMPANY] (Re) , 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 27 at para 21; [COMPANY] v Rex , 2002 SCC 42 at para 26). The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent trilogy in [NAME] v Canada (National Revenue) , 2025 SCC 13, [COMPANY] [COMPANY] , 2025 SCC 15, and [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 SCC 21 ( [NAME] ) reiterated that the text of the statute in question remains the anchor of the interpretative exercise ( Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse du [NAME] , 2024 SCC 43 at para 24) and that, when interpreting bilingual legislation, both versions of the legislation are equally authentic and equally authoritative ( [NAME] at para 90). [ 34 ] The meaning of the words “[NAME]” in Item 11 of Table 2 to Tariff B is determined by considering the words used in the item and in their context in Table 2, according to a bilingual analysis. Items 10 to 14 of Table 2 to Tariff B read as follows:

10. Provision of instructions to [NAME] [NAME] and review of [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] affidavit, for each affidavit.

10. Fourniture d’instructions à un [NAME] et examen d’un affidavit d’un [NAME] présenté à l’appui, pour chaque affidavit.

11. Preparation and service of [NAME] affidavits, for each affidavit.

11. Préparation et signification d’un affidavit de tout autre [NAME] présenté à l’appui, pour chaque affidavit.

12. Preparation related to cross-examination of each [NAME] [NAME].

12. Préparation liée au contre-interrogatoire d’un [NAME].

13. Preparation related to cross-examination of each [NAME] [NAME] than [NAME] [NAME].

13. Préparation liée au contre-interrogatoire d’un [NAME] autre qu’un [NAME].

14. Attendance at cross-examination of [NAME], for each hour (for each quarter hour or less, add 25% of the units allocated for each hour).

14. Présence à un contre-interrogatoire d’un [NAME], pour chaque heure (dans le cas de chaque quart d’heure ou moins, ajouter 25 % des unités attribuées par heure). [ 35 ] There is no indication in the wording of Item 11 that the assessable service is limited to the preparation and service of affidavits of secondary, not [NAME], witnesses. Indeed, Table 2 does not refer in any way to [NAME] or secondary witnesses, [NAME], or [NAME]. The term “[NAME] affidavits” (“ affidavit de tout autre [NAME] ” ) is to be understood by reference to an assessable service under Item 10 of Table 2 to Tariff B and the language used to describe it. Item 10 pertains to the assessable service relating to the affidavit of an [NAME] [NAME] called in support of an application. Item 11 follows from Item 10, referring to the assessable service in relation to the affidavit of any “[NAME]” filed in support of the application. The notion of “[NAME]” in Item 11 is to be understood as a [NAME] [NAME] than an [NAME] [NAME] referred to in Item 10. The assessable services set out in Items 12 and 13 confirm this interpretation by distinguishing between an [NAME] [NAME] and an “[NAME]” , who, under Item 13, is necessarily not an [NAME]. [ 36 ] Upon considering Item 11 in context, and above all in light of the wording of Items 10 and 13, I find that the assessable service contemplated in Item 11 relates to the preparation and service of any affidavit in support of an application that is not an affidavit from an [NAME] [NAME]. [ 37 ] [ADDRESS] therefore allows 4 units per affidavit prepared and served by the Respondent, for a total of 16 units.

VI. Item 20 of Table 2 to Tariff B [ 38 ] The Respondent claims 4 units for the service assessable under Item 20 of Table 2 to Tariff B. The assessable service concerned is described as “Counsel fee for attendance of [NAME] at hearing of application, for each hour in Court, 50% of the units per hour allocated under item 19 (for each quarter hour or less, add 12.5% of the units per hour allocated under item 19)”. [ 39 ] The Applicant submits that the Court lacks the authority to award costs claimed under Item 20 in the absence of an order to that effect and that there is no order giving the Court the authority to award costs in this case. The Applicant relies on the decision of the assessment officer in [NAME] at paragraph 32 in this regard. [ 40 ] The constraint in [NAME] on the assessment officer’s jurisdiction under Item 13(b) of the table to former Tariff B must be understood and limited to the record at issue in [NAME] and to the issue of whether the Court’s direction in that case permitted the assessment officer to allow costs for a [NAME]’s preparation time. The [NAME]’s preparation time discussed in [COUNSEL] is not at issue here. [APPELLANT] therefore does not apply. [ 41 ] The Applicant’s challenge of the claim based on Item 20 is unfounded, and I dismiss it. [ADDRESS] therefore allows the 4 units claimed in respect of Item 20 of Table 2 to Tariff B.

VII. Item 26 of Table 2 to Tariff B [ 42 ] Item 26 of Table 2 to Tariff B concerns “[a]ny [NAME] service allowed by the assessment officer or ordered by the Court”. Here, the Respondent claims 2 units for the preparation and filing of documents from the federal board, commission or [NAME] tribunal dated September 29, 2022, requested by the Applicant in his notice of application under Rule 317. The Applicant disputes the claim on the grounds summarized above. [ 43 ] The Applicant’s challenge lacks factual premise and relies on case law that does not apply. The Applicant’s argument conflates a “certified tribunal record” contemplated by Rules 317 and 318 with the Respondent’s record under Rule 310 and cannot be accepted. [ 44 ] The “certified tribunal record” contemplated by Rules 317 and 318 is a record produced by the federal board, commission or [NAME] tribunal that rendered the impugned decision if one of the parties requests it. The entity that must produce the “certified tribunal record” is the federal board, commission or tribunal that rendered the impugned decision, and the content of the “certified tribunal record” is determined by the content of the request made under Rule 317. Explained in general terms, the content of a “certified tribunal record” is limited to the documents and [NAME] materials that were before the administrative decision-maker at the time the decision was made and that are relevant to the issues raised in the notice of application for judicial review (see [NAME] v [COMPANY] , 2019 FCA 145 at paras 16–18 for a discussion of the purpose of Rule 317 and the record covered by Rule 318(1); see also [COMPANY] v Canada (Environment and Climate Change) , 2023 FC 688 at para 21; [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2007 FCA 224 at paras 17, 21). [ 45 ] The Respondent’s record contemplated in Rule 310 and Item 15 of Table 2 is the Respondent’s record of evidence and argument, containing, among [NAME] things, and in accordance with Rule 310(2) of the Rules , affidavits served by the Respondent in support of its position, transcripts of cross-examinations on affidavits provided for in Rule 308, and a memorandum of fact and law. [ 46 ] A “certified tribunal record” under Rules 317 and 318(1) and the Respondent’s record referred to in Rule 310 are records of different kinds, prepared by an administrative tribunal on the one hand and by a party on the [NAME], each having separate and different roles in a judicial review proceeding. [ 47 ] The assessment officer’s decision in [APPELLANT] , cited by the Applicant, dealt with the description of assessable services under the former Tariff B and with the assessment related to a memorandum of fact and law that normally should have been included in a record contemplated by Rule 309 or Rule 310. That case law does not apply here, because the Respondent’s claim is not related to Rule 310. [ 48 ] Nevertheless, the fact remains that the federal board, commission or [NAME] tribunal and the respondent in this case are the same entity, although that entity may exercise separate and distinct powers and roles depending on the circumstances. The federal board, commission or [NAME] tribunal that files a “certified tribunal record” under Rule 318 is required to do so under the Rules ( Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2013 FCA 199 at para 309). It is rare for a federal board, commission or [NAME] tribunal to be a respondent in a case where one of its decisions is challenged because, as administrative decision-makers, [NAME], commissions or [NAME] tribunals must maintain their impartiality and the appearance of impartiality and ensure that they can decide an issue again if an application for judicial review is granted and the matter referred back to it for redetermination ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FCA 98 at paras 13–15). It follows that the federal board, commission or [NAME] tribunal has no costs to claim, since it is not a “respondent” within the meaning of Rule 303. [ 49 ] Therefore, the Court cannot award costs to the Respondent under Item 26 of Table 2 to Tariff B for discharging its duty as an administrative decision-maker to file a certified record under rule 318(1). [ 50 ] The Respondent also requests 2 units for the preparation and filing of a letter from the Respondent dated March 28, 2024, regarding an informal request for interlocutory relief. The interlocutory relief sought upon consent was granted by order of Associate Judge Molgat on April 3, 2024, without costs. [ADDRESS] ruled on costs in relation to the said letter in April 2024, and there is no reason to interfere with Associate Judge Molgat’s order for costs.

VIII. Disbursements [ 51 ] The Applicant claims disbursements for photocopies, bindings, tabs, binders, courier services, legal research, parking and meals, as follows: a) $5.10 for “administrative and technological fees”; b) $1,031.08 for “administrative and technological fees”; c) $577.17 for “administrative and technological fees”; d) $16.65 for parking in Québec City on the day of the hearing on the merits; and e) $7.34 for meal expenses on the day of the hearing on the merits. [ 52 ] The Applicant objects to these disbursements for the reasons summarized above. [ 53 ] The administrative and technological fees described by the Respondent appear to actually be administrative fees related to client services and administrative costs necessary to operate a law practice in a [NAME], which, to the extent possible, [NAME] want to recover from their clients. Even if invoiced to their clients, these administrative fees do not mean that the disbursements for administrative fees described are necessarily recoverable as assessable disbursements in the context of a litigation. [ 54 ] The Respondent’s evidence does not explain the reasons administrative and technological fee disbursements of $5.10, $1,031.08, and $577.17 were incurred, the purpose of those fees, or whether they were necessary to bring the case before the Court. Given the lack of specifics, the Court cannot find that the disbursements claimed are reasonable ( [NAME] at para 39). [ 55 ] Parking and meal expenses are not claimable disbursements given that the hearing of the case took place in the city where counsel for the Respondents are located ( Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] et associés [COMPANY] , 2008 FC 980 at para 13). [ 56 ] I find that none of the disbursements claimed will be allowed.

IX. Motion to Strike Allegations and Exhibits [ 57 ] The Applicant filed a motion on March 6, 2023, seeking an order striking allegations and exhibits from [NAME]’s affidavit. Associate Judge Molgat dismissed the Applicant’s motion by order dated June 28, 2023. The Associate Judge ordered that costs of the motion would be in the cause. [ 58 ] The Respondent claims 4 units for the service assessable under Item 8 of Table 4 to Tariff B as costs of the motion. The Applicant does not challenge the Respondent’s claim in this regard. The Respondent is entitled to costs in this respect. [ 59 ] The Respondent claims another 5 units under Item 14 of Table 4 to Tariff B for the assessment of the costs of the motion. [ADDRESS] agrees with the Applicant that ordering costs for the assessment of a motion that is already included in an assessment exercise would in this case amount to double indemnification. The Respondent’s claim under Item 14 of Table 4 to Tariff B is dismissed.

X. Conclusions [ 60 ] For the above reasons, the Respondent is entitled to its costs in the proceeding, awarded as follows, in reference to Table 2 to Tariff B: a) Item 2: 1 unit b) Item 11: 16 units c) Item 15: 8 units d) Item 17: 6 units e) Item 18: 8 units f) Item 20: 4 units g) Item 24: 1 unit h) Item 25: 5 units i) Item 26: 0 units Total: 49 units [ 61 ] The Respondent is also entitled to 4 units under Item 8 of Table 4 to Tariff B. [ 62 ] The Respondent is therefore entitled to costs equivalent to 53 units worth $200 each, for a total of $10,600.

ORDER in T-1811-22 THIS COURT ORDERS as follows: The Respondent is awarded its costs in this proceeding, in the amount of $10,600. The Applicant must pay costs in this proceeding to the Respondent in the amount of $10,600 “Benoit M. Duchesne” Judge Certified true translation [NAME], Senior Jurilinguist FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1811-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v COUNCIL OF THE HURON-[NAME] OF WENDAKE

ORDER: [NAME] J. DATED: June 29, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT’S DIRECTIONS IN PARAGRAPHS 92 TO 94 OF THE

JUDGMENT OF APRIL 21, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: [NAME] For the applicant [NAME] [NAME] For the respondent