Wayne v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 1209

Date: 20081028

Docket: T-486-04

Citation: 2008 FC 1209

Between:

JOEL WAYNE GOODWIN, of Melbourne, in the County of Yarmouth,

Province of Nova Scotia, and DEREK PATRICK D’ENTREMONT,

of Middle West Pubnico, in the said County

Applicants

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, for and on behalf

of THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS OF CANADA

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS –REASONS

JUDITH CHARLES, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]          This is the assessment of the Respondent’s bill of costs pursuant to the Federal Court Reasons for Order and Order dated August 30^th, 2005 in which the judicial review application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

[2]          The Applicants brought an application before the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in a news release of June 19, 2003 indicating an intention to change the Department’s interpretation of vessel length policy which allegedly would apply to fishing vessels used in the lobster fishery in which the Applicants hold licences. The Application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

[3]          On July 4, 2007, the Respondent filed a bill of costs.  On March 17, 2008, a timetable for the serving and filing of reply and rebuttal materials, if any,  was issued to the parties.

[4]          The Applicants took issue with the range of units sought by the Respondent and also mentioned that item 24 – Travel for counsel to attend cross-examinations sought by the Respondent  is an assessable service which is to be assessed at the discretion of the Court.  The Applicants also noted that the Respondent’s claim for units under items 2 and 13 ought to fall under item 5 and the units awarded should be within the midrange.   The Respondent’s rebuttal acknowledged that items 2 and 3 were improperly noted and submitted an adjusted table. The Respondent also acknowledged that item 24 – travel is at the discretion of the Court whether the service will be allowed. The Respondent disagreed with the Applicant’s suggested reduction of the units as the Respondent held that the proceeding dealt with complex administrative law principles that required a certain legal expertise.

[5]          In Bruce Starlight et al. v Canada (2001) F.C.J. No. 137(A.0.), the assessment officer held that “the Rules are designed to crystallize the pertinent issues and eliminate extraneous issues. For example, the pleading and discovery stages may involve a complex framing and synthesizing of issues leaving relatively straightforward issues for trial. Therefore, 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”.  In my view, the approach taken in this precedent is applicable in this assessment even though the proceeding was a judicial review application and I assessed the items accordingly.

[6]          The taxable services shown in the Respondent’s Bill of Costs for “Application for Judicial Review” are assessed as follows:  Item 2 is assessed and allowed at 6 units; Item 8 is assessed and allowed at  4 units; Item 9 is assessed and allowed at 28 units;  Item 13 is assessed and allowed at 4 units; Item 14 is assessed and allowed at 19.5 units; Item 24 is disallowed as the Court  did not authorize the assessment of this item; Item 26 is assessed and allowed at 2 units.

[7]          The taxable services shown in the Respondent’s Bill of Costs for “Motion for Order allowing Additional Cross-Examination” are assessed as follows:  Item 5 is assessed and allowed 6 units; Item 6 is assessed and allowed at 4 units.

[8]          The disbursements are allowed as presented.  It should be noted that  notwithstanding the fact the Court did not authorize the assessment of the assessable service of travel by counsel, disbursements for travel may be allowed as cited  in Marshall v. Canada, 2006 CarswellNat 2615, 2006 FC 1017 (A.O.).  I found that the amount claimed for disbursements related to travel to be reasonable and allowed it.  The Respondent’s Bill of Cost is assessed and allowed at $10,327.86.

HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA

FEDERAL COURT

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          T-486-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          GOODWIN, JOEL WAYNE ET AL v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

PLACE OF TAXATION:                  Halifax, Nova Scotia

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS –

REASONS BY:                                  JUDITH CHARLES, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

DATE OF REASONS:                      October 28, 2008

SOLICITOR OF RECORD: