This is a dangerous precedent. Will the Court be one-sided, awarding hefty amounts to taxpayers but confining the Crown to tariff? (In this case, the taxpayer got relatively large costs despite divided success.)
 The issues in those cases were not of significant precedential value.
D. Settlement Offers
 The Respondent argues that because both parties made written settlement offers and actively attempted to resolve the issues prior to trial, this factor should not weigh in favour of granting increased costs.
 Given the closeness of the Appellant’s settlement offers to the ultimate result, it seems appropriate to grant some additional costs on the basis of the settlement offers, although not the substantial indemnity costs that the Appellant requests.
 The Respondent has not specifically addressed this issue, but I am wary of creating a practice of awarding increased costs on the basis of hindsight. As Justice Campbell Miller noted in Henco, “[f]or this factor to be determinative, it must be clear . . . that a party has acted unreasonably in its conduct.” The mere fact that the Respondent was unsuccessful on certain issues at trial does not mean that it was unreasonable to pursue those issues.