Date: 20100512
Docket: T-1078-08
Citation: 2010 FC 518
BETWEEN:
JOHN DETORAKIS
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF
COSTS – REASONS
Johanne Parent
Assessment Officer
[1]
On
January 13, 2010, the Application pursuant to Section 51.2 of the Public
Servants Disclosure Protection Act for judicial review of a decision of the
Public Sector Integrity Commission was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
[2]
A
timetable for the written disposition of the respondent’s costs was issued on
February 16, 2010. Service of said directions on the applicant could not be
properly established. Consequently additional directions were issued and served
on both parties on April 13, 2010. No further material was received on behalf
of the respondent while the applicant filed submissions in the prescribed
timeframe.
[3]
The
respondent claims the maximum number of Units for the Respondent’s Record (Item
2), the preparation for hearing (Item 13) and attendance at hearing (Item 14)
with no further justification. In a general statement, the applicant requests
that all eligible costs be assessed at the lower end of Column III. With regard
to Item 2, however, the applicant submits that: “… costs for the Respondent
Record should be assessed at the mid-point column III at 5.5 Units”.
[4]
As
stated in Rule 409 of the Federal Courts Rules, the assessment officer
in assessing costs may consider the factors referred to in subsection 400(3). In
light of that rule and based on my review of the file and of the decision of
the Court, I am satisfied that given the complexity of the case and the amount
of work required to prepare the Respondent’s Record, six Units under Item 2 is
justified.
[5]
With
regards to Items 13 and 14, the applicant submits that “the effort was
commensurate to meeting a lay person in Court …” From my review of the file and
of the Court’s decision, I am satisfied that a substantial amount of work was
performed by the respondent and, therefore, I allow four Units under Item 13
and the number of Units claimed under Item 14.
[6]
The
respondent claims Item 24 for travel to the hearing. Item 24 reads: “Travel by
counsel to attend a trial, hearing, motion, examination or analogous procedure,
at the discretion of the Court”. I am in agreement with the applicant that the
Court did not specifically make any mention of travel by counsel to attend the hearing.
Consequently, I do not have the jurisdiction to assess costs under this Item.
Item 24 is disallowed.
[7]
In
consideration of the very little material submitted by the respondent regarding
the matter of costs, Item 26 (assessment of costs) is reduced to two Units.
The
respondent claims three Units under Item 27 for other services (pre-hearing
matters) without providing any specific information. In reply, the applicant contends
that the pre-hearing matters were dealt with in the course of motions and that
costs had already been dealt with by the Court on these matters. More detailed
information from the respondent regarding this Item would have been beneficial
to better understand the context in which this claim is made. In the absence of
appropriate justification to support this claim and after having considered the
matters that preceded the hearing, I disallow Item 27.
[8] The disbursements for
photocopies are considered charges necessary to the conduct of this matter, are
not contested and will be allowed as claimed.
[9] The Bill of Costs is allowed for
a total amount of $2,460.00.
“Johanne Parent”
Toronto, Ontario
May 12, 2010
Email this Content