Ferme Avicole Kiamika Inc. v. Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food), 2006 FC 1392

Date: 20061117

Docket: P-4-96

Citation: 2006 FC 1392

Between:

FERME AVICOLE KIAMIKA INC.

Appellant

AND

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS

MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]               This is the assessment of the bill of costs owed to the Minister of Agriculture following the decision dated July 7, 1998 of Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer, who was  acting as Assessor under the Health of Animals Act. The reasons for decision given by the Court in files P-2-96, P‑3‑96 and P-4-97 apply mutatis mutandis to this case. At the respondent’s request, the assessment proceeded on the basis of the written submissions of the parties.

[2]               As mentioned by the respondent in his submissions, my jurisdiction as an assessment officer is limited to determining the amount of the costs. This being said, I cannot take into consideration the agreement mentioned by the appellant in its submissions.

[3]               In these circumstances, fees are allowed in an amount of $2,916 for the following items of Tariff B: 2 (7 units), 11 (3 units), 13 (5 units), 25 (1 unit) and 26 (2 units). In accordance with current practice, fees are calculated on the basis of the unit value in force at the time the application for assessment was made, that is, $120.

[4]               In reply to the appellant’s comments, I maintain the number of units requested at item 2, considering the explanations given by the respondent to support the allowance of 7 units for preparing and filing his reply, particularly the complexity of the legal and accounting principles involved. However, I will reduce to 2 units the assessment of the costs, as this bill of costs is similar to those filed in the above-mentioned cases.

[5]               On the basis of the evidence submitted, the disbursements incurred by the respondent in the amount of $8,689.50, including $14.68 for the service of the bill of costs, are allowed as requested. The expert’s fees of Luc Chabot for services rendered in this file are quite reasonable. As far as the expenses incurred to ensure the appearance of the witness Jean Dion in Ottawa are concerned, they may be recovered by the respondent, as counsel for the respondent had to have recourse to his services, if necessary, to ensure a full reply and defence for his client.

[6]               In conclusion, a certificate of assessment is issued in the amount of $11,605.50, representing the amount of the costs allowed for the respondent in this file.

DATED AT MONTRÉAL, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2006.

Certified true translation

Michael Palles

                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                                                      SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT DOCKET NUMBER:        P-4-96

Between:

FERME AVICOLE KIAMIKA INC.

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                          AND

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING

PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec

REASONS BY MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

DATED:                                 NOVEMBER 17, 2006

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Marc-André Simard

Mont-Laurier, Quebec                                                              For the appellant

John Sims

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario                                                                       For the respondent