Date: 19990910
Docket: IMM-4616-97
BETWEEN:
ALBERT LOMINADZE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
SECRETARY OF STATE
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
G.G. Wilkins,
Assessment Officer
[1] This is an assessment of a Bill of Costs filed by the Applicant on May 21, 1999.
[2] The application for judicial review in this matter flows from a decision of a visa officer dated September 12, 1997. By Judgment dated October 7, 1998, the judicial review application was allowed with costs. At the request of the Applicant, an Appointment issued on May 25, 1999 for the hearing of this assessment to take place at Toronto, Ontario, on June 22, 1999. Counsel appeared on behalf of the Applicant, but no one appeared at the hearing to represent the Respondent, although duly served with the Appointment.
[3] Following the hearing before me, counsel for the Respondent explained, by letter dated June 24, 1999, that his absence at the assessment had been the result of a scheduling omission. He also included in his letter the Respondent's representations in opposition to the Applicant's Bill. This was immediately followed by a letter the next day from counsel for the Applicant who opposed the Respondent's late representations and requested an opportunity, at a more convenient time, to reply in greater detail. On July 5, 1999, the Applicant filed rebuttal representations and claimed additional double costs for the two events of this assessment as a result, apparently, of the Respondent's earlier rejection of an offer by the Applicant to settle costs.
[4] In the circumstances, I am not inclined to deny the Respondent an opportunity to be represented on the Applicant's Bill. In the events that followed the hearing, the Applicant was given, and in fact took, the opportunity to reply to opposing counsel's arguments. The Applicant is therefore not prejudiced in any way by my considering the written representations filed late by the Respondent.
[5] As to the fees claimed for the services of counsel, the position taken by the Applicant at the assessment was that the maximum of units under column III of the Tariff should be allowed because these proceedings were complex in nature, especially important to his client and involved considerable work. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued in its written representations that only the minimum is warranted because the issues of this judical review were singular in nature, not particularly complex and did not require an extraordinary amount of work.
[6] In my review of this case, and considering the Rule 400(3) criteria, I am not convinced that the maximum is justified. Nor, on the other hand, do I agree with the Respondent's view that the minimum should be applied. I have therefore assessed the fees claimed by the Applicant as follows: for preparation and filing of originating documents (Item 1), I allow 6 units; the number of units claimed under Item 13 for Prepration for hearing is reduced to 4 units; appearance on the judicial review, which the Court record reveals as having been approximately 1.5 hours, is allowed at 3 units (3 units x 1.5 hours); and 1 unit is allowed as claimed for services after judgment.
[7] As for the argument for double costs for the assessment itself, counsel has not provided any authority, Rule or other provision to support his premise. Moreover, I am not convinced that Rule 420(1), if that is the authority inferred by counsel, is applicable to the situation of an offer to settle costs alone. That having been said, and appreciating that although this assessment has not been particularly complex the Applicant has nevertheless been put to unnecesssary work by the Respondent's late response, I will allow the maximum of 6 units under Item 26 for this assessment.
[8] For the disbursements of photocopying and faxes, I will allow $.10 and $.20 respectively per page. No evidence was provided by the Applicant to support a higher cost for these than had been agreed at an earlier assessment in these proceedings and the amount of $2.00 claimed in the Applicant's Bill per fax page seems highly unreasonable. The costs of process servers at $110.00 (I've corrected a mathematical error in the Bill) and the $50.00 filing fee are also allowed. The Goods & Services Taxes are adjusted accordingly to $150.50 on fees and $16.55 on disbursements (no GST applicable to $50 filing fee).
[9] In accordance with the above, I have assessed the Applicants Bill of Costs in the amount of $2,150.00 for fees, $286.40 for disbursements and $167.05 for Goods and Services Taxes. A Certificate of Assessment will be issued in the total amount of $2,603.45.
(signed: Gordon G. Wilkins)
Gordon G. Wilkins
Assessment Officer
Ottawa, Ontario
September 10, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket: IMM-4616-97
ALBERT LOMINADZE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
SECRETARY OF STATE
Respondent
DATE OF ASSESSMENT: June 22, 1999
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Toronto, Ontario
REASONS BY G.G. WILKINS, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATE OF REASONS: September 10, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Rocco Galati for the Applicant
Jeremiah Eastman for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
GALATI, RODRIQUES, & ASSOCIATES
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario for the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content