Johnson v. Bell Canada, 2009 FC 811

Date: 20090807

Docket: T-1385-07

Citation: 2009 FC 811

BETWEEN:

DONALD PETER JOHNSON

Applicant

and

BELL CANADA

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS

DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]               On September 26, 2008, the Court dismissed with costs the application for judicial review under Section 14 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

[2]               On January 7, 2009, counsel for respondent filed a bill of costs requesting that the assessment proceed in writing. Letters were sent to parties setting a timetable for the filing of written representations. Both parties filed their written representations. I am now ready to proceed with the taxation.

[3]               The applicant suggests in his written submissions in opposition to the bill of costs that public interest should be applied to minimize the assessed costs against the applicant. The respondent, in his reply to the applicant’s representations, submits that the factor of public interest should not be applied in the present case because the application filed by the applicant was not for the purpose of having the issues litigated on behalf of or in the public interest. I agree with the respondent that since the reasons for judgment are silent as to public interest, an assessment officer has no jurisdiction to consider that factor in awarding costs. However, I do think that each item of Tariff B should be assessed in its own circumstances as per Starlight v. Canada, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1376, at paragraph 7.

[4]               Respondent is claiming in its bill of costs the following assessable services: item 2 – preparation of respondent’s record (7 units), item 13a) – preparation for hearing (5 units), item 14a) – counsel fee: attendance at Federal Court per hour (3.5 hours x 3 units), item 24 – travel by counsel to attend a trial (Montreal to Halifax), item 25 – services after judgment not otherwise specified (1 unit), item 26 – assessment of costs (5 units), and item 27 – preparation of affidavit of Simeon Doucette sworn on September 20, 2007 (3 units).

[5]               I have allowed the following assessable services: item 2 – preparation of Respondent’s record (5 units), item 13a) – preparation for hearing (3 units), item 14a) – counsel fee: attendance at Federal Court per hour (3.30 hours x 3 units), item 25 – services after judgment not otherwise specified (1 unit) and item 26 – assessment of costs (3 units).

[6]               Item 2 has been reduced from 7 to 5 units which I consider reasonable for the case at bar.  I have reduced item 13a) from 5 to 3 units which I consider reasonable for this type of file. I have allowed item 14 a) at 10 units because the duration of the hearing was 3.30 hours x 3 units. Item 24 was disallowed because the item reads as follows: “travel by counsel to attend a trial, hearing, motion … at the discretion of the Court” and since no order of the Court was rendered concerning this particular item, the assessment officer is without jurisdiction to allow it. Item 26 – assessment of costs was reduced from 5 to 3 units because the assessment is not complex. Item 27 – preparation of the affidavit of Simeon Doucette sworn on September 20, 2007 is disallowed because this document is already included in item 2 of tariff B. The assessable services are allowed in the amount of $2,979.90 ($2,640 + $132 (GST) + $207.90 (QST)).

[7]               As for disbursements, I will allow the following items: long distance telephone charges, long distance fax charges and stationery binding because they are not contested and reasonable and necessary for the case at bar.

[8]               Photocopies will be allowed in the amount of $635 as requested in respondent’s reply because I found it reasonable and necessary for the case at bar.  As for the computer search services, I do think that the amount requested at $593.26 is quite high for this type of file so I will allow what I consider necessary and reasonable in the amount of $474.61. As for the travel expenses from Montreal to Halifax, I found the amount of $869.60 reasonable for the airplane ticket, hotel, taxis and meals. I do not agree with counsel for the applicant that respondent should have chosen a lawyer from Halifax because, as per section 11 of the Federal Courts Act, there is no restriction in the choice of counsel by a party. So, the travel expenses paid for the lawyer were necessary and reasonable for the case at bar. The disbursements will be allowed in the amount of $2,402.51 ($2,128.47 + $106.42 (GST) + $167.62 (QST)).

[9]               The respondent’s bill of costs presented at $7,623.72 is assessed and allowed in the amount of $5,382.41. A certificate of assessment will be issued in this amount.

“Diane Perrier”

MONTREAL, QUEBEC

August 7, 2009

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          T-1385-07

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          DONALD PETER JOHNSON v. BELL CANADA

ASSESSMENT IN WRITING APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

PLACE OF TAXATION:                  Montréal, Quebec

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS

                                                            DIANE PERRIER, TAXATION OFFICER

DATE OF REASONS:                      August 7, 2009

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: