Date: 20080910
Docket: T-699-06
Citation: 2008 FC 1014
BETWEEN:
HARI S. NESATHURAI AND
1322901 ONTARIO LIMITED
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF
COSTS - REASONS
Johanne Parent
Assessment Officer
[1]
The
application to cancel or vary Requests for Information (RFI’s) issued by the respondent,
was granted and the RFI’s quashed by the Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan on February
12, 2008. An amended judgment was further issued, on March 31, 2008, allowing
costs on a party-and-party basis as provided for in Column III of the table to
Tariff B of the Federal Court Rules. Counsel for the applicants and
respondent filed their submissions on costs and agreed on the written
disposition of the assessment of the applicants’ bill of costs.
[2]
The
applicants claim as assessable services seven units for the preparation and
filing of originating documents (Item 1). Considering the factors in Rule
400(3) and my reading of the file, five units will be allocated.
[3]
With
regard to the various claims made under Items 4 and 5 for preparation and
filing of uncontested and contested motions, the Court’s orders of August 26,
2006, January 22, 2007, March 5, 2007, April 30, 2007 and May 14, 2007, are all
silent as to costs. In Janssen-Ortho Inc. and Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd v. Novopharm Limited, 2006 FC 1333, the Court determined that, “any
pre-trial order that is silent as to costs means that no costs have been
awarded to any party”. Consequently, items 4 and 5 are not allowed.
[4]
The
number of units claimed for counsel fees under Item 13 (a) is not contested and
will be allowed 5 units as claimed. Two units will be allowed for counsel fee
for preparation for hearing per day in Court after the first day (Item 13(b)). Item
14(a) was not contested and will be allowed as claimed i.e. three units per
hour for the ten hours in Court. Items 25 and 26 are allowed as claimed,
respectively one and two units.
[5]
The
applicants claim one unit under Item 27 for other services as may be allowed by
the assessment officer, namely for the filing of the requisition for hearing.
This service is not an assessable service specifically referred to in Tariff B
of the Federal Court Rules. I allow the minimum unit under item 27 to
indemnify counsel for items not covered in the Tariff.
[6]
Under
the sub-heading C - Discovery and Examinations, the applicants claim the
maximum number of units for Items 7, 8 and 9. With regard to Item 7, I cannot
find any proof of discovery of documents in this matter within the meaning of
Section 222 and subsequent sections of the Federal Court Rules regarding
the disclosure of documents in an action. This assessment of costs deals specifically
with costs on an application and, therefore, no units will be allowed for this
item. In view of my reading of the documents on file, four units will be
allowed for Item 8 and two units per hour for the 13 hours on attending the
examination.
[7]
The
amounts claimed for disbursements substantiated in the respondent’s submissions
on costs and consented to by the applicants were all charges necessary to the
conduct of this matter. The amounts are reasonable and are, therefore, allowed.
[8]
The
bill of costs is allowed at $12,269.53 plus GST on assessable services,
photocopy and facsimile disbursements ($464.39) for a total amount of $12,733.92.
“Johanne Parent”
Toronto, Ontario
September 10,
2008
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-699-06
STYLE
OF CAUSE: HARI
S. NESATHURAI AND
1322901 ONTARIO
LIMITED v. THE MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT
PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT
OF COSTS: JOHANNE
PARENT
DATED: SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:
|
Jeffrey L. Goldman
|
FOR THE APPLICANTS
|
|
Pierre-Paul Trottier
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Jeffrey L. Goldman
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, ON
|
FOR THE APPLICANTS
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, ON
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content