Docket: T-1752-06
Citation:
2015 FC 181
Ottawa, Ontario, February 13, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GARY SAUVE
|
|
Plaintiff
|
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
|
IN RIGHT OF CANADA,
|
|
MARC FRANCHE (RCMP),
|
|
LARRY TREMBLAY (RCMP),
|
|
Defendants
|
SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
These are my supplementary reasons concerning
the outstanding issue of costs in this proceeding. In my Judgment and Reasons
issued on January 16, 2015 I dismissed Mr. Sauve’s action against the
Defendants and reserved on costs pending further submissions from the parties.
The Defendants’ submissions were received on January 23, 2015. No submissions were forthcoming from the Plaintiff save for an indication from his counsel
that she had no instructions to respond.
[2]
The Defendants were wholly successful in
defending this action and they are entitled to their reasonable costs. Counsel
for the Defendants has tendered a Bill of Costs claiming $27,440.00 as a
contribution to legal costs and $16,402.99 for disbursements.
[3]
The Defendants refer to the factors listed in
Rule 400 Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, in support of their claim to
legal costs and they rely, in particular, on an oral offer to settle that
appears to have been made to Mr. Sauve’s legal counsel at some point in
2013. According to Ms. Letourneau’s letter to the Court dated July 4, 2013, Mr. Sauve rejected an unspecified global offer to resolve all of his
outstanding litigation against the federal Crown. No terms of the proposed
settlement have been presented to the Court. This is not particularly
surprising inasmuch as the settlement offer was never reduced to writing.
[4]
I am not prepared the credit the Defendants for
their attempt to settle with Mr. Sauve. For very good reasons, including
the avoidance of more disagreement, Rule 400 permits the Court to consider only
“written” offers of settlement. An attempt to
settle multiple legal proceedings with a single offer is also not particularly helpful
where the costs of only one proceeding need to be assessed.
[5]
I am also concerned about the Defendants’ claims
to costs in connection with a variety of motions that were filed by one or the
other dating back as far as 2007.
[6]
Almost all of the early motions in this
proceeding were concluded by Orders where no award of costs was made. It is
not open to the Court to revisit those matters and to award costs where none
were ordered at the time: see Exeter v Canada, 2013 FCA 134 at
para 14.
[7]
The Defendants also seek costs in connection
with their motion to strike Mr. Sauve’s Statement of Claim. Justice Anne Mactavish awarded costs of that motion against Mr. Sauve of only $250.00. Those costs
appear to have been paid by Mr. Sauve. On appeal that Order was reversed,
in part, with an award of disbursements to Mr. Sauve. In those
circumstances, a claim to legal costs for that motion is not justified.
[8]
The claim to costs for the Defendants’
uncontested motion for an extension to file a Defence is also not justified.
[9]
The Defendants’ claim for disbursements will
need to be verified on an assessment. One item that stands out is a claim to
witness fees of almost $7,000.00. This may relate, in large measure, to the
cost of travel for one RCMP witness who attended from Panama where he is now posted. If that is the case, the claim to reimbursement will be
recoverable at the lesser of the actual cost of travel or a regular economy
airfare from Panama to Ottawa. This item is only recoverable in the event that
the witness in question was not otherwise required to be in Ottawa for other
business-related reasons.
[10]
Having regard to the above-noted adjustments, I
award costs to the Defendants in the amount of $17,000.00 along with their
reasonable disbursements to be assessed.
Email this Content