Date: 19980526
Docket: T-1349-95
T-1356-95
T-1357-95
T-1358-95
T-1764-95
BETWEEN:
NEALE D. BURTON,
Plaintiff,
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Defendant.
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] The Plaintiff, an inmate, brought actions in each of five Court files for a variety of relief. The Plaintiff filed motions for default Judgment. The Defendant filed Statements of Defence and motions to strike. By Orders dated August 6, 1996, the Court denied default Judgment with costs in the cause, struck the actions without leave to amend and granted costs in the mid-range of Column II.
[2] Defendant presents this Bill of Costs in Court file No. T-1349-95:
Item Description Column No. of Units
as Presented
2. Preparation and filing of Defence II 4.0
5. Defendant's Motion to Strike II 4.0
5. Response to Plaintiff's contested
motion for default II 4.0
25. Services after judgment II 1.0
26. Taxation of costs II 2.0
Photocopying 200 pages at 25 cents per page
(as per Maloney v. Canada, [1989] 24 F.T.R. 283 (T.D.) $50.00
TOTAL FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS PRESENTED: $1550.00
[3] The Bill of Costs served on the Plaintiff presented 3.5 units for items No. 2, 5 and 5 respectively, and 2.5 units for item No. 26. The Defendant did so to comply with the Order but, since the Plaintiff did not consent, the Defendant noted in written submissions that "those numbers have been increased to the next highest full unit in order to comply with s. 2(2) of Tariff B" (I note that item No. 26 was actually decreased to 2 units). The Defendant's written submissions also asserted that considerable time "was spent researching the law, consulting with our client and receiving instructions, preparing documents and filing them in Court" relative to the pleadings and motions; that with "respect to Services after Judgment, time was required to inform our client of the results of this action, to take instructions, and to wind up the file" and, for assessment of costs, that "appropriate counsel services were required to seek instructions from our client, prepare materials for the Bill of Costs, send it to the Plaintiff for payment and then to prepare the documents for the Registrar seeking a taxation of the Bill of Costs". The Defendant filed an affidavit in support of these submissions including those for disbursements. I directed that the Defendant serve the Plaintiff with all materials under cover of a letter with this timetable:
| |
You must serve the draft Bill of Costs, supporting affidavit and submissions filed January 23, 1998, no later than February 18, 1998, on the Plaintiff under cover of a letter including this passage: |
|
| |
"Taxing Officer Stinson has noted the draft Bill of Costs of Her Majesty the Queen, the Affidavit of Sandra Weafer sworn January 20, 1998 and the letter dated January 23, 1998 and containing written submissions, all filed January 23, 1998. He directed that this material be served upon you by February 18, 1998 and that I inform you of this timetable: |
|
| |
(a) Plaintiff must file and serve any reply materials by Friday, March 13, 1998. |
|
| |
(b) Defendant must file and serve any rebuttal materials by Monday, March 23, 1998.". |
|
| |
You should then file an Affidavit of Service appending your covering letter above as an exhibit. |
|
The Affidavit of Service of Michael Setter sworn February 9, 1998, confirmed that this was accomplished on February 6, 1998. The Plaintiff has not responded. The same sequence of events occurred in Court files No. T-1356-95, T-1357-95, T-1358-95 and T-1764-95.
[4] Relative to the Defendant's choice of presenting whole units as opposed to fractions of units, I note that the Orders did not restrict assessment to mid-point, ie. a single value centred mid-way in the range. Rather, the term "mid-range" afforded more flexibility by implying the set of values clustered about that mid-point. I allow the Bill of Costs as presented at $1,550.00 in each of Court files No. T-1349-95, T-1356-95, T-1357-95, T-1358-95 and T-1764-95.
(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"
Assessment Officer
Dated at Vancouver, B.C. this 28th day of May, 1998
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
STYLE OF CAUSE: NEALE D. BURTON
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant.
COURT NOS.: T-1349-95, T-1356-95, T-1357-95,
T-1358-95, T-1764-95
ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
OF PARTIES
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS: CHARLES E. STINSON
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATED: May 28, 1998
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
George Thomson for Defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content