Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Self-represented litigants cannot claim taxable services (legal fees) without specific Court instructions under Rule 400(1) of the Federal Courts Rules.

• Tariff B establishes two mutually exclusive categories of costs: taxable services and disbursements, with disbursements being payments to third parties for services not provided by legal counsel.

• A taxation officer lacks jurisdiction to modify or exceed a judgment already rendered by the Court, limiting their role to cost assessment rather than adjudication.

• Financial circumstances of a party are not a relevant factor for a taxation officer to consider when assessing costs.

• Disbursements must be reasonable, necessary for the litigation, and supported by evidence, though officers have broad discretion in evaluating incomplete documentation.

• The principle of precedent from other cases does not bind a taxation officer to allocate amounts not awarded in the current judgment.

Background of the dispute

Christopher Lill, a self-represented inmate, brought a judicial review application against the Attorney General of Canada. On May 6, 2025, the Federal Court granted his application with costs awarded in his favor. Following this judgment, Mr. Lill filed a bill of costs on June 17, 2025, initiating the taxation process under Rule 406 of the Federal Courts Rules. The taxation proceeded in writing, with both parties submitting written representations and affidavits between August and October 2025.

The applicant's claims and arguments

Mr. Lill claimed a total of $632.31 in costs, comprising $62.51 for courier fees, $100.00 for court filing fees, and $469.80 for printing costs at $0.30 per page. Beyond disbursements, he argued that he should be entitled to taxable services despite being self-represented, suggesting that Article 28 of Tariff B applicable to students, paralegals, or articling students should apply to him. He further contended that the principle of precedent should allow him taxable services since the Court awarded a lump sum including taxable services in his favor in a previous case (T-2475-23), and that the defendant's position in that earlier case should bind them in this matter.

Jurisdictional limitations of the taxation officer

Taxation Officer Karine Turgeon determined that she lacked jurisdiction to award taxable services to a self-represented party absent specific Court instructions. Citing the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Turner v. Canada, 2003 FCA 173, she emphasized that a taxation officer is not a member of the Court but rather a registry official whose role is to assess costs following a judge's decision. The officer cannot "go beyond, or contrary to, the adjudication already pronounced by the judge," as stated in Pelletier c. Canada (Procureur général), 2006 FCA 418. The precedent argument was rejected because the current taxation followed a judgment that did not award taxable services, and precedent cannot authorize the officer to alter an existing court decision.

Factors considered in the taxation

The taxation officer declined to consider several factors raised by the applicant, including his limited financial, logistical, and administrative resources as an inmate. Jurisprudence from Latham v. Canada, 2007 FCA 179 and Leuthold v. Société Radio-Canada, 2014 FCA 174 established that a party's financial situation is not a relevant factor in cost taxation. The officer also declined to consider the defendant's conduct as a factor since the judgment did not expressly indicate there was cause to reprimand such conduct. However, she did consider the favorable outcome for the applicant and his explanations regarding the type of evidence he could provide given his circumstances.

Assessment of disbursements

The courier fees of $62.51 were allowed in full as the affidavit evidence corresponded with the court file records. For court filing fees, only $50.00 was allowed for the judicial review application, as no fees were paid for a hearing request despite the applicant's claim. Regarding printing costs, the officer accepted 1,560 pages as reasonable but reduced the rate from the claimed $0.30 to $0.20 per page. The applicant had printed documents himself using a printer that the detention centre had lent him and only incurred costs for paper purchase and delivery, unlike parties who also pay for ink and equipment operation. The officer noted that $0.25 per page had been considered reasonable in recent jurisprudence for copies made by a party without third-party intervention, but given the limited nature of the applicant's actual expenses, $0.20 per page was appropriate.

Ruling and outcome

The taxation officer taxed and allowed Mr. Lill's bill of costs at $424.51, payable by the defendant to the applicant. This amount comprised $62.51 for courier fees, $50.00 for court filing fees, and $312.00 for printing costs (1,560 pages at $0.20 per page). A certificate of taxation was issued simultaneously for this sum. The applicant's claims for taxable services were denied due to the absence of Court instructions permitting such an award to a self-represented litigant.