Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicant's improper presentation of costs claims under tariff items designated for federal appeal proceedings rather than judicial review proceedings necessitated reassessment and conversion to correct categories.
• Assessment officers retain authority to intervene and ensure compliance with Federal Courts Rules and Tariff B when a respondent fails to oppose a bill of costs, preventing overpayment or excessive claims.
• Party-and-party costs under Column III of Tariff B represent partial indemnity only, not full compensation for all work performed, requiring a balance between indemnifying the successful party and not overburdening the unsuccessful party.
• Multiplication of units by hours is permissible only for specific tariff items explicitly designated "per hour," with other items dependent solely on available unit ranges.
• Counsel fees for a second lawyer at trial or hearing require explicit Court direction, which assessment officers alone cannot authorize.
• Claims pertaining to services not actually performed or filed must be disallowed regardless of tariff classification.

Background and procedural history

East Coast Hydraulics & Machinery (2009) Limited initiated a judicial review application against the International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1976 pursuant to paragraph 28(1)(h) of the Federal Courts Act. The underlying dispute involved matters determined by the Labour Board of Nova Scotia, specifically relating to a Voluntary Recognition Agreement. The Court rendered its Judgment and Reasons for Judgment on March 20, 2025, allowing the application for judicial review in favour of the applicant and awarding costs to East Coast Hydraulics & Machinery (2009) Limited.

The costs assessment process

On April 9, 2025, East Coast Hydraulics & Machinery (2009) Limited filed its bill of costs and notice of appointment, initiating the formal assessment of costs process under subsection 406(1) of the Federal Courts Rules. The respondent, International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1976, declined to file any written opposition to the bill of costs or seek an extension of the deadline to do so. An assessment officer was assigned to review and determine the appropriate costs award. The applicant submitted additional written submissions on April 24, 2025, supporting its cost claims.

Critical preliminary issues identified

The assessment officer identified two significant preliminary issues requiring resolution. First, when a party ordered to pay costs does not oppose the bill of costs, assessment officers must independently verify that each claim falls within the authority of the Court's decision awarding costs, the Federal Courts Rules, and Tariff B. This oversight function ensures that assessable services claimed comply with the applicable legal framework. Second, East Coast Hydraulics & Machinery (2009) Limited presented its entire bill of costs as a function of multiplying units by a number of hours. This methodology proved problematic because the principle of multiplying units by hours applies only where an assessable service has the specific mention "per hour" in Tariff B. Only Items 6, 9, 11, 14, 16(b), 21(b), 22, and 23 bear this designation; all other items are calculated based solely on available unit ranges within the tariff, not hours worked. Consequently, the applicant's approach required substantial reassessment and adjustment.

Application of the tariff and column III costs

The Court's judgment awarded costs to the applicant without adding specific instructions as to costs. Therefore, Rule 407 of the Federal Courts Rules applied, requiring that party-and-party costs be assessed in accordance with Column III to Tariff B. The assessment officer emphasized that Column III intends to provide partial indemnity rather than substantial or full indemnification. It is not designed to compensate lawyers for every hour worked in pursuing litigation; instead, it must represent a compromise between compensating the successful party and burdening the unsuccessful party. These costs should neither be punitive nor extravagant.

Detailed assessment of individual cost claims

The applicant sought a total of 186 units in its bill of costs. The assessment officer systematically reviewed each claim. The claim for Item 15 (preparation and filing of a written argument) totalling 34 units was disallowed because no written argument was requested or permitted by the Court in any direction or order. The claim under Item 17 for preparation, filing, and service of a notice of appeal was converted to Item 1, which provides for preparation and filing of originating documents and applicant records in judicial review contexts. Because the applicant succeeded in its application and conducted proceedings in a reasonable and efficient manner with no unnecessary or vexatious steps, the assessment officer allowed the maximum of 7 units under Item 1. For Item 18 (preparation of an appeal book), while the applicant claimed 4 units, no appeal book was actually filed in the Court record. However, the applicant did file materials on March 19, 2025, in preparation for the March 20, 2025 hearing. This service was reclassified as Item 13(a) (preparation of a trial or hearing), and the minimum of 2 units was allowed. The claim under Item 19 for the memorandum of fact and law totalling 60 units was entirely disallowed because in judicial review proceedings, the memorandum of fact and law is subsumed within the application record compensated by Item 1, and units had already been allocated for this work at Item 1.

Hearing-related costs and counsel fees

For Item 22(a) (hearing of appeal to first counsel), the applicant claimed 10 units based on 5 hours of counsel attendance at the hearing held on March 20, 2025. This claim was reclassified to Item 14(a) (trials and judicial review hearings). The Court's registry officer recorded the hearing duration as 3 hours and 25 minutes. Accounting for preparation time before the scheduled start, the assessment officer allowed 4 hours. Applied at 2 units under Column III, this yielded 8 units instead of the claimed 10. The claim under Item 22(b) for a second counsel at the hearing totalling 10 units was disallowed. Item 14(b) compensates for a second counsel's presence only "where Court directs." The assessment officer lacks independent authority to allow such compensation without explicit Court direction, which was absent from the Judgment and Reasons for Judgment. The claim for Item 20 (requisition for hearing) presented a unique situation: no item in Tariff B indemnifies work performed in relation to requisitions for hearing in judicial review proceedings. The assessment officer invoked Item 27, which grants discretion to allow units for services not otherwise provided for by Items 1 to 26, and allowed 1 unit. The claim under Item 21(a) (counsel fee on a motion) totalling 50 units was disallowed entirely because no motion was ever filed or heard by the Court; the only hearing was the judicial review hearing itself.

Assessment of costs administration fees

The applicant claimed 4 units for services performed in relation to the assessment of costs itself, which fell within the available range of 2 to 6 units under Column III for Item 26. The assessment officer allowed the full 4 units claimed, finding the allowance justified by the number of claims submitted and the work performed, including preparation of the bill of costs and notice of appointment filed on April 9, 2025, and the applicant's submission on costs filed on April 24, 2025.

Final outcome and costs award

Following comprehensive assessment of all claims and application of the proper tariff items and Column III unit values, the assessment officer determined that East Coast Hydraulics & Machinery (2009) Limited was entitled to costs in the amount of $4,554.00, taxes included. This amount represents party-and-party costs payable by the International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1976 to East Coast Hydraulics & Machinery (2009) Limited. A certificate of assessment was issued on November 21, 2025, to formalize this costs award. The successful party recovered a portion of its legal costs incurred in prosecuting the judicial review application, though the partial indemnity award fell substantially below the 186 units originally claimed, reflecting the Court's policy of balancing the interests of both parties.