Caisse populaire de la Péninsule Ltée v. M/V Guy Georges (Vessel), 2012 FC 114

 Date: 20120130

Docket: T-2046-10

Citation: 2012 FC 114

BETWEEN:

[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

JOHANNE PARENT, Assessment Officer

• [1] On October 5, 2011, the Court, upon submission of an application for default judgment on an ex parte basis, ordered the Defendants Éric O. Gionet and Berte Gionet to pay the sum of fifty-nine thousand eight hundred and seventy-five dollars and seventy-six cents ($59,875.76), plus the amount of thirteen dollars and thirty-three cents ($13.33) per day beginning September 14, 2011, plus costs. Subsequently, the Plaintiff submitted its bill of costs to the Court. Directions were given on October 14, 2011, informing the parties that the assessment of costs would proceed in writing and of the time limit for the filing of submissions.

• [2] At the time of the assessment, it was noted that neither the bill of costs nor the directions issued on October 14, 2011, had been served to the Defendants. Consequently, new directions were issued and served to all parties on December 21, 2011, pursuant to Rule 145 of the Federal Courts Rules, which stipulates that, with the exception of the final judgment and subsequent documents, to which I equate the bill of costs, a party who has been served with an originating document is not required to be served with any further documents unless the party has filed a notice of appearance or a defence. In light of the final paragraph of Rule 145 and despite the fact that the Defendants never appeared or filed a defence in the Court record, I considered the bill of costs to be a document served and filed subsequently to the final Court judgment and therefore had to be served to the Defendants with the directions on December 21.

• [3] Following service of the directions and bill of costs to all parties, the Court Registry received no written submissions or applications to extend the time limit. Consequently, I will assess the bill of costs pursuant to the Federal Courts Rules, Tariff B and the observations of my colleague in Dahl v. Canada, 2007 FC 192 (OT) at paragraph 2:

Effectively, the absence of any relevant representations by the Plaintiff, which could assist me in identifying issues and making a decision, leaves the bill of costs unopposed. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Courts Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by an assessment officer stepping away from a position of neutrality to act as the litigant’s advocate in challenging given items in a bill of costs. However, the assessment officer cannot certify unlawful items, i.e. those outside the authority of the judgment and the Tariff.

• [4] The units claimed for preparing and filing the originating document (item 1) and for preparing and filing an uncontested motion (item 4) will be allowed as claimed.

• [5] The disbursements claimed in the bill of costs are not disputed and are considered necessary to the conduct of this matter. The amount is justified and will therefore be allowed as claimed.

• [6] The Plaintiff’s bill of costs is allowed in the amount of $1,150.00

“Johanne Parent”

Toronto, Ontario

January 30, 2012

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:  T-2046-10 

STYLE OF CAUSE:  LA CAISSE POPULAIRE DE LA PÉNINSULE

LTD. v. THE VESSEL M/V GUY GEORGES recently changed to M/V J.J.C.R.

AND ÉRIC O. GIONET AND BERTE GIONET ET AL.

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT BY:  JOHANNE PARENT, Assessment Officer

DATED:  January 30, 2012

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: