http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/99804/index.do 
Otteson v. The Queen (December 2, 2014 – 2014 TCC 362) was a costs decision in a case that I blogged earlier on this site:
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/73121/index.do
where the taxpayers, husband and wife, were successful in claiming the Farming Capital Gains Exemption on slightly more than 50% of their farm acreage. The Tax Court reserved on the issue of costs and this is the decision arising out of that reserve.
The taxpayers were asking for an award of $20,000 plus disbursements:
[2] The Appellants seek a lump sum costs award in the amount of $20,000 ($10,000 each) plus disbursements of $1,714.50. They submit that such an award is warranted because they were substantially successful in their appeals.
[3] As a starting point, I feel the need to point out that the Appellants’ math is slightly off. They claim that $20,000 equals approximately 25% of the $65,680 in solicitor-client fees that they incurred. However, $20,000 actually equals approximately 30% of those fees. The case law shows that, when it comes to costs awards, percentages are calculated in relation to fees only, and not fees plus disbursements and GST, as the Appellants may have done.
The Tax Court examined in considerable detail the factors entering into a cost award in excess of the Tariff. For readers interested in the current state of the law in this area this decision is a very helpful and detailed review.
Ultimately however the decision boiled down to a couple of pithy paragraphs:
[31] In light of the above, and given that there are no other factors relevant in determining costs here, I believe that an appropriate costs award under section 147 is one based on 20% of the fees incurred, plus disbursements. This works out to a lump sum award of $13,000 plus disbursements of $1,714.50.
[32] This award is consistent with an appeal that was mostly successful and in which a relatively low amount of money was involved, in which the issues were novel and carried precedential value but are unlikely to be widely applicable in the future, in which there was a relatively routine volume of work, and in which the level of legal complexity was slightly high.
Comment: This case appears to be consistent with current trends in the Tax Court towards more liberality in the award of costs in excess of the Tariff. Since the appellants were only partially successful on the main issue presumably the award would have been higher had they been fully successful.