Date: 20030219
Docket: T-2395-00
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 198
Ottawa, Ontario, this 19th day of February, 2003
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE
BETWEEN:
LOUIS QUIGLEY
Applicant
- and -
CANADA (HOUSE OF COMMONS),
CANADA (BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY)
and CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL)
Respondents
- and -
COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES FOR CANADA
Intervener
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER REGARDING COSTS
O'KEEFE J.
[1] After I rendered my decision in this matter, the parties made written submissions with respect to costs.
[2] The applicant requested that he be awarded costs against the respondents, on a solicitor and client basis or in the alternative, if costs are not awarded on a solicitor and client basis, then a lump sum award for costs in the amount of $25,000 should be made. In the further alternative, if neither a solicitor and client or lump sum award is made, then the Court should direct that the costs be assessed under Column V of Tariff B rather than Column III.
[3] The respondents, Canada (House of Commons) and Canada (Board of Internal Economy) submit that solicitor and client costs should not be allowed and that if a lump sum award, then it should be in the amount of $5,000, all inclusive or the costs should be ordered assessable under the Tariff.
[4] Solicitor and Client Costs
Malone J.A. of the Federal Court of Appeal in Minister of National Health and Welfare v. Apotex Inc. (2000) 194 D.L.R. (4th) 483 (F.C.A.) at page 489 stated:
While Rule 400(1) speaks in terms of full discretion with the power to consider any other relevant matters, and paragraph 400(3)(k)(i) deals with improper, vexatious or unnecessary conduct, both are in substance the same as the former Rule 344(3)(m)(i) as amended in 1987. In my opinion, the new Rule 400(1) does not confer unfettered discretion. Existing jurisprudence must still be considered including the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at page 864, 174 D.L.R. (4th) 193, which applied the traditional principle, namely:
Solicitor-client costs are generally awarded only whether there has been reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct on the part of one of the parties.
There has not been any conduct in this application that would warrant the awarding of solicitor and client costs.
[5] Lump Sum Award for Costs
I have reviewed the submissions of the parties with respect to the award of a lump sum for costs and I am not prepared, based on the information before me, to make such an award.
[6] Assessment of Costs under Column V of Tariff B instead of Column III
In the further alternative, the applicant has submitted that his costs should be assessed under Column V instead of Column III of Tariff B.
[7] In Hamilton Marine & Engineering Ltd. et. al. v. CSL Group Inc. et. al. (1995) 99 F.T.R. 285 (F.C.T.D.) at pages 291 to 292, Nadon J. stated:
I indicated to counsel during the hearing that there was no doubt that, in most cases, the fees provided in Tariff B were not sufficient to fully compensate a successful party. I also indicated to counsel during the hearing that, in my view, the tariff necessarily had to remain the rule and that an increase of the tariff fee was the exception. By that I meant that the discretion given to the court to increase the tariff amounts pursuant to rule 344(1) and (6) of the Federal Court Rules was not to be exercised lightly. Put another way, the fact that the successful party's legal costs were far superior to the amounts to which that party was entitled under the tariff, wa snot in itself a factor for allowing an increase in those fees.
I am not satisfied that the circumstances of this case justify an assessment of the plaintiff's costs at Column V instead of Column III of Tariff B.
[8] I have read the submissions of the Attorney General of Canada and I am of the view that costs should not be awarded against the Attorney General of Canada due to its limited participation in the hearing.
[9] There shall be no award of costs to the intervener, the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada.
ORDER
[10] IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The applicant shall have his costs assessed against Canada (House of Commons)
and Canada (Board of Internal Economy) under Column III of Tariff B.
2. Costs shall not be awarded against Canada (Attorney General).
3. There shall be no award of costs to the intervener, Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada.
"John A. O'Keefe"
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
February 19, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2395-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: LOUIS QUIGLEY
- and -
CANADA (HOUSE OF COMMONS),
CANADA (BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY) and
CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL) and
COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
FOR CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: Wednesday, December 5, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER REGARDING COSTS OF O'KEEFE J.
DATED: Wednesday, February 19, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Kevin Quigley and Brian Curry
FOR APPLICANT
Joel E. Fichaud
FOR RESPONDENT
House of Commons and
Board of Internal Economy
Michael Donovan
FOR RESPONDENT
Attorney General
Laura C. Snowball
FOR INTERVENER
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Burchell Green Hayman Parish
1800 - 1801 Hollis Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2R7
FOR APPLICANT
Patterson, Palmer, Hunt, Murphy
1600 - 5151 George Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2N9
FOR RESPONDENT
Email this Content