|
Federal Court
|
|
Cour fédérale
|
Date: 20100623
Docket: T-1720-09
Citation: 2010 FC 689
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
BETWEEN:
MICHEL BÉLANGER
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS
DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1] This is an assessment of the Defendant’s bill of costs further to the order of the Federal Court on December 18, 2009, allowing, with costs, the Defendant’s motion to strike the Plaintiff’s statement of claim completely, without leave to amend, and to have the Plaintiff’s action dismissed.
[2] On March 22, 2010, counsel for the Defendant filed the bill of costs alongside the affidavit of Gabrielle Clément and exhibit “A” and requested that it be assessed without appearance of the parties. On April 29, 2010, letters were sent to the parties establishing a timetable for filing written submissions. The parties have filed their written submissions. I am now ready to assess the Defendant’s bill of costs.
[3] The Defendant is claiming the following counsel fees: item 5 – preparation and filing of the Defendant’s contested motion, including all materials (7 units), item 25 – services after judgment not otherwise specified (1 unit) and item 26 – assessment of costs (6 units). The Defendant is seeking the maximum number of units for all items claimed. Upon reading the file and the parties’ submissions, I share the opinion of Assessment Officer Stinson in Bruce Starlight v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2001 FCTD 999 at paragraph 7 that “. . . each item is assessable in its own circumstances and it is not necessary to use the same point throughout in the range for items as they occur in the litigation.” Item 5 will therefore be allowed for 6 units, because I consider it reasonable to allocate 6 units for this type of motion.
[4] Item 25 – services after judgment not otherwise specified will be allowed for 1 unit as claimed by the Defendant. I find, as the Defendant stated in citing in its reply the decision of Assessment Officer Pilon in Richards v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.) 2005 FC 265, 2005 D.T.C. 5157, that assessment officers typically allow the single unit without the need for supporting evidence because this item serves to cover services provided after judgment.
[5] Item 26 – assessment of costs will be allowed for 3 units because I consider this to be a simple assessment.
[6] The Defendant’s counsel fees, claimed at $1,820 will therefore be allowed in the amount of $1,300.
[7] The photocopies of the Defendant’s motion record in the amount of $228.75 are disputed by the Plaintiff, who claims that photocopy costs are already covered by the units allocated under item 5. I do not agree, because it is common practice for assessment officers to allow the amount of $0.25 per page for photocopies. See the decision in Bernard v. Attorney General of Canada, as the Defendant suggests. Bailiff fees in the amount of $151.57 will be allowed as claimed because they are not disputed and appear to be reasonable and proven by affidavit. Disbursements will therefore be allowed in the amount of $380.32.
[8] The Defendant’s bill of costs totalling $2,200.32 is assessed and allowed in the amount of $1,680.32. A certificate of assessment will be issued for this amount.
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
June 23, 2010
“Diane Perrier”
DIANE PERRIER
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1720-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: MICHEL BÉLANGER
v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS: DIANE PERRIER,
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATED: June 23, 2010
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
| Michel Bélanger
|
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
|
| Michel Miller
|
FOR THE DEFENDANT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE DEFENDANT
|
Email this Content