Date: 20010220
Docket: T-2986-92
Reference: 2001 FCT 97
BETWEEN:
RÉJEAN PLANTE
Plaintiff
- and -
THE CANADA EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION COMMISSION
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendants
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
FRANÇOIS PILON
Assessment Officer
[1] This action for a declaratory judgment and for damages was dismissed on June 7, 2000 with costs. Dominique Guimond, counsel for the defendants, filed his bill of costs on November 29, 2000 and asked that it be assessed without the parties appearing in person. Réjean Plante, who represented himself at that stage of the proceedings, filed his written submissions on February 9, 2001 and Mr. Guimond reacted by filing a reply on February 12, 2001.
[2] Mr. Plante objected to the defendants' bill of costs being assessed. He further maintained that counsel for Her Majesty the Queen were asking for an excessive amount when he had exercised his rights to win the case. Further, he added the following, and I quote:
[TRANSLATION]
This case went on for much too long. Several unnecessary witnesses. Mr. Lévesque confirmed the written version of the investigation report. His immediate superior explained how a decision is made following the investigation report. After that, a woman testified to explain how the cards work and the description of codes, which went on forever.
[3] On the length of the proceedings and the number of witnesses heard, Mr. Guimond submitted that the testimony of each person who testified was relevant to establish the validity of his clients' claims. He maintained that at the time of the hearing the plaintiff was represented by counsel and the latter had an opportunity to cross-examine each of the witnesses and did not see fit to make any representations regarding the relevance of their testimony.
[4] If I understand the plaintiff's arguments correctly, certain persons required to testify for the defendants at the hearing were not necessary as the case law cited by their counsel would have sufficed to establish their positions, and this would have had the effect of reducing the length of the hearing, which was two days, and so reducing the amount of the bill of costs.
[5] We should first make it clear that it is not the function of the assessing officer to decide whether a bill of costs should be assessed, as his authority derives from the judgments and orders of the Court and from the Rules which govern the assessment of party-and-party costs. On the second point raised by the plaintiff regarding the witnesses questioned, I agree with the arguments submitted by Mr. Guimond and even the prothonotary, in his reasons for judgment, relied on the explanations given by the witnesses for the Crown. Accordingly, we will proceed with the assessment of the bill of costs.
[6] First, the amount of $150 claimed under Tariff A for the filing of the defence will be denied. The defence was filed on May 7, 1996, under the "old" Rules. At that time court fees were collected in cases where a counterclaim accompanied the defence, and that is not the case here.
[7] For fees Mr. Guimond claimed the maximum units for each of the items in column III of Tariff B. The plaintiff argued, on the contrary, that it would be fairer to award the minimum. In order to help me determine the number of units that appears reasonable in the circumstances of the case at bar, I reviewed the status of the file and the proceedings resulting; I also took into account the five factors set out below, contained in Rule 400(3):
(a) the result of the proceeding;
(b) the amounts claimed and the amounts recovered;
(c) the importance and complexity of the issues;
(d) the apportionment of liability; and
(g) the amount of work.
[8] The following is a list of the items claimed for fees and the number of units I will allow:
|
|
Items
2
5
7
8
9
10
11*
13a
13b
14a*
26*
|
|
Units claimed
7
7
5
5
$300
6
$300
5
3
$4,500
6
|
|
Units awarded
6
5
4
4
$200
4
$100
4
2
$2,600
4
|
|
* in item 11, the length of the pre-trial conference was 34 minutes
* in item 14a, the transcript indicated a total of 13 hours' attendance in Court
* in item 26, written submissions were filed against the objection to the bill of costs.
[9] The defendants claimed the sum of $395.50 for various disbursements. Costs of service ($92.88), typing ($121.23) and travel ($54.53) were proven and are awarded. On the other hand, the sum of $38.75 will be deducted from the photocopying expenses since I am unable to decipher certain exhibits in support of Steve Massenat's affidavit.
[10] The defendants' bill of costs will be assessed and allowed in the amounts of $6,200 for fees and $356.75 for disbursements. An assessment certificate in the amount of $6,556.75 will be issued.
|
|
(signed)
François Pilon
Assessing Officer
|
Halifax, Nova Scotia
February 20, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: T-2986-92
BETWEEN:
RÉJEAN PLANTE
Plaintiff
- and -
THE CANADA EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION COMMISSION
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendants
ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
REASONS BY: François Pilon, Assessing Officer
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF REASONS: February 20, 2001
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Campeau, Ouellet & Associés for the plaintiff
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the defendants
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content