The Death of the Tariff: A Review of the Tax Court's Discretionary Approach to Costs Awards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional objective of a costs award in general civil litigation was to indemnify the successful party for the legal and other costs incurred to defend an unproven claim or pursue a valid legal right. However, Canadian courts have recognized that the traditional view of costs is outdated and that an additional and more important use of costs awards is promotion of the efficient and orderly administration of justice. Costs awards at the Tax Court of Canada have generally followed a similar path of development, but at a slower pace. Historically, costs were awarded only in accordance with the tariff annexed to the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) unless "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct" was present. More recently, however, Tax Court judges have expressed concerns about the inadequacy of the tariff. These concerns have led the court to adopt a "principled" approach to costs, similar to that used in modern general civil litigation, by applying specific factors set out in rule 147(3) ("the 147(3) factors") rather than relying solely on the tariff. This article reviews the recent jurisprudence relating to costs awards at the Tax Court, with a particular focus on the manner in which the 147(3) factors have been interpreted and how the application of those factors could evolve to further promote the new objectives of costs awards recognized in general civil litigation. The authors argue that costs awards by the Tax Court could be used more effectively to promote the efficient and orderly administration of justice by (1) taking into consideration the unique features of a tax dispute, and (2) placing additional emphasis on the purposes of costs awards adopted in general civil litigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".