Background
The Federal Court had dismissed Mr. Miller’s application for judicial review on February 3, 2026, awarding TD Bank its costs under column 2 of Tariff B. The dismissal decision found that Miller had pursued multiple proceedings in several forums based on essentially the same or similar allegations, whose cumulative effect amounted to an abuse of process.
TD Bank then filed a bill of costs claiming 32 units for several services connected with the judicial-review proceeding. Miller opposed the bill and asked, alternatively, for payment and enforcement to be deferred pending his appeal or for any costs to be paid by instalments reflecting his financial circumstances.
The Court’s Holding
Assessment Officer Stéphanie St-Pierre Babin held that the current version of Tariff B applied because the costs award was made after the new tariff took effect on December 21, 2025. The officer had no jurisdiction to defer enforcement, order instalment payments, or consider Miller’s ability to pay. Those issues concern enforcement rather than the assessment of the amount payable.
The officer allowed 17.5 units: 9 units for preparing and filing TD Bank’s record, including its memorandum; 7 units for preparation for the hearing; and 1.5 units for counsel’s half-hour attendance at the hearing. Claims for conference preparation, preparation for a second hearing day where the hearing lasted only one day, and “other services” were disallowed. The latter could not recover motion-related work already governed by motion-costs orders, or duplicate hearing-preparation costs. Applying the then-current $200 unit value, the officer assessed TD Bank’s costs at $3,955, inclusive of taxes.
Key Takeaways
- An assessment officer determines the amount of costs, not whether or how a costs award will be enforced.
- A pending appeal does not stop enforcement of a costs award without a stay or other legal basis.
- Tariff items must match the service claimed; a party cannot use a residual item to obtain duplicate or otherwise unavailable costs.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the disciplined, item-by-item approach required in Federal Court costs assessments under the revised Tariff B. It also confirms that financial hardship and payment arrangements are not assessment issues after costs have been awarded.
For litigants, the case underscores the need to identify the actual service performed, comply with the wording of the relevant tariff item, and account for any prior motion-specific costs order before seeking further recovery.