http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/66749/index.do 
Harvey v. The Queen[1] (February 7, 2014) is a case involving a request on the part of the Crown for a lump sum costs award of $12,000. The award would apparently exceed the applicable Tariff (the issue is not clear from the Reasons for Judgment). The court agreed with the Crown, largely on the basis of the decision of the taxpayer to contest the imposition of penalties (the taxpayer was actually successful as to 20% of the reassessment):
Results of the Proceeding
[6] As a result of the proceeding, Mr. Harvey was permitted to deduct some but not all of the additional business expenses that he sought. In total, Mr. Harvey was permitted to deduct approximately one-third of the expenses he was claiming. However, the gross negligence penalties assessed against him in respect of his unreported revenue were upheld. As a result, Mr. Harvey was just over 20% successful on his appeal. Put another way, the Respondent was almost 80% successful in upholding the reassessments. I put significant weight on this factor.
…
Conduct Affecting the Duration of the Proceeding
[15] Mr. Harvey’s decision to fight the application of gross negligence penalties despite having already pled guilty to tax evasion in respect of the exact same amount had a significant effect on the length of the proceedings. Both of the Respondent’s witnesses were called in respect of the penalties issue and a great deal of Mr. Harvey’s time on the witness stand was spent dealing with that issue. I estimate that the trial would have taken approximately one-third as long if Mr. Harvey had not pursued the penalties issue. I give significant weight to this factor.
…
Summary
[20] Considering all of the above factors, I feel that the Respondent’s approach of lump sum costs payable to the Respondent, taking into account party and party costs, disbursements, the $4,000 in costs previously awarded and the additional time and expense caused by Mr. Harvey’s pursuit of the penalty issue is the appropriate means of dealing with costs. Accordingly, I will award fixed costs payable to the Respondent forthwith in the total amount of $12,000. This figure includes the costs relating to the parties’ submissions on costs.
Comment: This decision is very difficult to evaluate since there is no indication what the award would have been under the Tariff. As a result the case must be regarded as an outlier of little precedential weight.
[1] 2014 TCC 41.