Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Costs were determined following the dismissal of Ms. Tricia Darlene Noble’s PIPEDA application against Synergy Credit Union Ltd., except for two minor directions the respondent consented to.

• The court exercised its discretion under Rule 400 of the Federal Courts Rules, considering success, volume of material, delay, and whether steps were improper, vexatious, or unnecessary.

• Both parties’ conduct was found to have unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings, including late filings and non-responsiveness by the respondent and an expansive, multi-issue record by the applicant.

• The applicant’s efforts to relitigate or collaterally attack matters before Saskatchewan courts and provincial regulators were described as improper and arguably vexatious.

• The respondent sought $1,800 in costs under Column 3 of Tariff B, but the court reduced this due to the respondent’s own conduct and the resource imbalance between the parties.

• The court ordered lump sum costs of $500, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by Ms. Noble to Synergy Credit Union Ltd.

Facts and procedural background
The application was brought by Tricia Darlene Noble, also known as Tricia Darlene McDonald, against Synergy Credit Union Ltd. under section 14 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5 (PIPEDA). On October 10, 2024, the court issued a main judgment dismissing the application, except for two relatively minor directions that the respondent had consented to. Following the hearing but before the main judgment was rendered, Ms. Noble, who represented herself, filed submissions on costs with a table and receipts showing out-of-pocket expenses, including an invoice from legal counsel on a limited retainer, totalling $6,260.36. Her table also claimed “opportunity costs” calculated as 5.37 years or 280 weeks at 20 hours per week at $35 per hour, or such other amount as the court deemed appropriate. The main judgment directed that, if the parties could not agree on costs, the respondent could file submissions within 14 days of the judgment and the applicant could reply within 21 days, subject to page limits.

Conduct of the parties and costs positions
On October 27, 2025, the respondent filed its costs submissions, seeking $1,800 based on Column 3 of Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules. It argued that it was substantially successful, that Ms. Noble’s material was especially expansive and required significant work to address, and that most of the application attempted to relitigate matters belonging in another forum. On October 30, 2025, Ms. Noble replied, asserting that the respondent’s procedural history, alleged repeated disregard of several Federal Courts Rules, and failure to meet filing deadlines made any award of costs in its favour unjust. She claimed, among other things, that the respondent’s costs submissions were late, that it did not file a memorandum of fact and law as directed, that its affidavit included discovery transcript excerpts from an action before the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench, that counsel did not comply with an undertaking she says was made at the hearing, and that she was not provided with copies of the costs submissions and a December 2, 2024 letter requesting a case management meeting. On October 31, 2025, she filed a 22-page “Reply to Judgment” asking the court to “take a fresh look” at parts of the main judgment, but the court did not consider those arguments on costs and stated it was functus officio except in narrow circumstances that did not apply.

Court’s analysis of conduct and Rule 400 factors
The court referred to its discretion under Rule 400 of the Federal Courts Rules and the factors listed in Rule 400(3), noting that the successful party is usually entitled to mid-range Column 3 costs and that the respondent’s requested $1,800 fell in that range. With the exception of the two directions noted earlier, the respondent was successful. The court found that both parties unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings. The respondent failed to file its affidavits and memorandum of fact and law on time, which caused the cancellation of the first scheduled hearing date, and counsel did not respond to Ms. Noble’s attempts to confirm availability for the requisition for hearing. Ms. Noble’s notice of application sought 20 separate orders and her memorandum of fact and law raised over 30 issues, although the court ultimately had jurisdiction over four issues and considered five of the 20 orders. Her affidavit evidence exceeded 1,000 pages, and the court found that the bulk of her materials did not relate to matters under PIPEDA. Instead, she sought to relitigate or collaterally attack decisions of provincial regulators and the Saskatchewan courts, and to have the Federal Court make findings in disputes currently before those bodies. The court described this conduct as improper and “arguably vexatious” and noted that this appeared to be a pattern in her disputes with the respondent. It also noted that earlier directions were occasioned by the respondent’s decision to renege on a commitment made before the Privacy Commissioner to provide Ms. Noble in-person access to certain material, and that at the hearing the respondent agreed to provide her those records to the extent they were in its possession.

Facts and outcome of the case
The court stated that vexatious conduct ordinarily results in elevated costs sanctions and that losing a hearing date due to late filings leads to cost consequences. Taking into account the Rule 400(3) factors, the parties’ submissions, the conduct of both parties, and the discretion under Rule 400, the court fixed a lump sum costs award. It ordered that Ms. Noble pay Synergy Credit Union Ltd. $500 in lump sum costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes. The court stated that, were it not for the respondent’s conduct, it would have ordered Ms. Noble to pay $1,800 in costs, and that, were it not for Ms. Noble’s conduct, it would have directed that each party bear its own costs. It concluded that the $500 amount was reasonable and also took into account the resource imbalance between the parties. In its formal judgment, the court awarded lump sum costs to the respondent, payable by the applicant, in the amount of $500.00, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.