Carlson v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2009 FC 579

Date: 20090603

Docket: T-1158-02

Citation: 2009 FC 579

BETWEEN:

PAUL ALLAN CARLSON

Plaintiff

and

THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

Defendant

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]               The Court dismissed with costs an appeal by the Plaintiff (a federal inmate) against a decision of the Prothonotary which had struck, without leave to amend, his amended statement of claim. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Defendant’s bill of costs.

[2]               There is a letter dated November 29, 2007 from the Plaintiff in the court file. It addresses a bill of costs, and is unfocused. Effectively, these circumstances are as if the Plaintiff had advanced no materials given the absence of any relevant representations which could have assisted me in identifying issues and making a decision. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Courts Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by having an assessment officer step away from a neutral position 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. I examined each item claimed in the bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. Certain items warrant my intervention given what I perceive as general opposition to the bill of costs.

[3]               The Defendant has claimed costs for the Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 45 for the latter’s escort in custody to argue a motion. The Court’s order disposing of that motion was silent on costs. Further to my findings in para. 73 of Abbott Laboratories v. Canada (Minister of Health) 2008, 66 C.P.R. (4^th) 301, [2008] F.C.J. No. 870 (A.O.) (under appeal) and para. 26 of Fournier Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), [2008] F.C.J. No. 1151 (A.O.), I must disallow the counsel fee item 5 (preparation) and associated disbursements. However, the Defendant claimed only a single counsel fee (6 units at $120 per unit) for two discrete motions, one of which was for the appeal of the Prothonotary’s decision and for which costs were allowed, and the second which was the Rule 45 motion and for which costs were not allowed. It is arguable that 6 units are assessable in these circumstances and I therefore leave the fee item 5 untouched. I do disallow the Rule 45 motion disbursements which appear to be $16.50 and $30.59 for process server and printing respectively. The remaining items of costs and their amounts are generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Defendant’s bill of costs, presented at $2,441.15, is assessed and allowed at $2,390.77.

“Charles E. Stinson”

Vancouver, BC

June 3, 2009

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          T-1158-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          PAUL ALLAN CARLSON v. RCMP

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED:                                                                                 June 3, 2009

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: