Background
Firmin Nguepi Dongmo discontinued his entire action against Her Majesty the King on January 19, 2026, by filing a notice of discontinuance. Under Federal Courts Rules 402 and 412, the Crown became entitled to costs forthwith upon discontinuance. Taxing Officer Karine Turgeon was tasked with assessing the Crown’s costs claims totaling ten units of work.
A preliminary legal issue arose regarding which version of the Federal Courts’ Tariff B should govern the taxation. The Federal Courts Rules were amended effective December 21, 2025 (SOR/2025-232), introducing a modified Tariff B. The transitional provision stipulates that the previous Tariff B applies to costs awarded in orders or judgments rendered before that date, while the new Tariff B applies thereafter.
The Court’s Holding
The taxing officer determined that the notice of discontinuance filed on January 19, 2026, should be treated as a judgment awarding costs as of that filing date. Consequently, the modified Tariff B applied to costs for the main action and the notice of intention to respond. However, costs for a motion filed February 22, 2024, and awarded by interlocutory order on August 21, 2024, fell under the old Tariff B since that order predated the rule amendment.
Since Dongmo did not file opposing representations, the taxing officer examined each claim under a neutral framework to ensure compliance with applicable rules, the tariff, and jurisprudence. The Crown claimed four units for preparing and filing its motion, one unit for filing a notice of intention to respond, and five units for the taxation process itself. The taxing officer allowed all ten units, totaling $1,800.00 in costs.
The Court emphasized that a provision for “other services” in Article 44 of the modified Tariff B—equivalent to Article 27 of the old Tariff B—gave the taxing officer discretion to award costs for services not specifically itemized elsewhere. Drawing on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Summary of the 2021 amendments, the Court reasoned that the notice of intention to respond was analogous to a notice of appearance, which had previously been compensable under the old tariff, and thus fell within the discretionary provision.
Key Takeaways
- A discontinuance operates as a judgment awarding costs as of the date of filing, triggering the costs rules and tariff in effect on that date.
- Tariff provisions must be interpreted flexibly to cover services that, though not explicitly listed, serve analogous functions to recognized tariff items and have historical precedent for compensation.
- When a plaintiff does not oppose a costs assessment, the taxing officer retains responsibility to ensure all claims are reasonable, properly categorized, and compliant with applicable legal framework.
- Transitional provisions in amended rules must be carefully applied to determine which version of a tariff or fee schedule governs particular phases of litigation.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Crown’s entitlement to costs upon discontinuance and clarifies the mechanics of applying transitional rules when procedural amendments take effect mid-litigation. It also establishes that taxing officers possess discretion to compensate newly introduced procedural steps—such as the notice of intention to respond—through general “other services” provisions when specific tariff items do not exist, grounded in analogy to prior recognized services and regulatory intent.
For counsel facing amended fee tariffs, the decision underscores the importance of timing: costs disputes can be governed by different tariff versions depending on whether the triggering event (here, discontinuance) occurs before or after the amendment’s effective date. The decision also illustrates that judicial neutrality in costs taxation does not mean passivity; taxing officers must actively ensure fairness and proper application of the tariff even when the unsuccessful party does not participate.