What is the test for a judge fixing costs?

At p. 2-24, §202, Orkin refers to the decision in Murano v. Bank of Montreal, supra, which held that a judge fixing costs is required to examine critically the work undertaken in order to determine that the costs claimed have been reasonably incurred, taking into account the complexity and significance of the case. In the court’s view, the total amount to be awarded in a complex and protracted proceeding cannot be reasonably determined without some critical examination of the parts that comprised the proceeding, the process being akin to an assessment with the judge reviewing the factors that an assessment officer would consider. As Orkin notes, the court concluded that although the procedure for fixing costs is different from an assessment, the substantive results of the two processes are not meant to be different. SUMMARY OF POSITION OF EACH PARTY