Date: 20080829
Docket: A-426-06
Citation: 2008 FCA
252
BETWEEN:
GÉRARD
MÉNARD
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
and
CANADA POST
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS
DIANE
PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1]
This
is an assessment of the bill of costs of the respondent, Canada Post, following
the judgment of the Court dated May 15, 2007, dismissing the application for
judicial review with costs in favour of the respondents, the Canadian Union of
Postal Workers and Canada Post.
[2]
On
August 2, 2007, the respondent, Canada Post, filed its bill of costs and
requested that the assessment be done without the appearance of the parties. On
March 10, 2008, letters were sent to the parties setting a schedule for the
filing of written submissions. The parties’ written submissions have been
received, so I am now prepared to assess costs.
[3]
In
these submissions, the applicant asserts that the assessment officer should not
allow the costs claimed because they are abusive and inaccurate. I would like
to recall that under Rule 400 of the Federal Courts Rules, only the
Court may grant the costs. Furthermore, under Rule 405 of the Federal Courts
Rules, costs are assessed by the assessment officer. Therefore, the
assessment officer’s role is to quantify the party-and-party costs, and the
assessment remains a partial indemnification of the fees paid by the parties.
[4]
The
taxable fees are allowed in the amount of $1539.69 ($1351.20 + $81.07 (GST) +
$107.42 (QST)). Since this is an appeal from an application for judicial
review, the assessment officer may allow costs in accordance with items 1 to 14
of Tariff B and items 24 to 28 of Tariff B. I have therefore allowed the
following items: item 2 for the applicant’s record (5 units), item 14(a) for
first counsel’s attendance in Court (1.42 hour x 3 units x $120) and item 26,
assessment of the bill of costs (2 units).
[5]
I
did not allow item 21(a)—motion for an extension of time for the service and
filing of a notice of appearance and the record of respondent Canada
Post—because the Court is silent in its order dated March 1, 2007, and Rule
410(2) of the Federal Courts Rules states that the costs of a motion for
an extension of time shall be borne by the party bringing the motion.
[6]
I
did not allow item 18, preparation of the appeal book, since no appeal book was
prepared in this case. Item 19, memorandum of fact and
law, was allowed for the respondent’s record in accordance with item 2 of
Tariff B, and I allowed only 5 units, which appears reasonable to me in the
circumstances of the case. Item 22, first counsel’s attendance in Court, was
allowed as item 14 of Tariff B, and the length of the hearing was amended to
one hour five minutes in keeping with the transcript of May 14, 2007.
[7]
I
did not allow item 24— travel by counsel to attend a hearing, at the discretion
of the Court—because the judgment of the Court is silent in this respect.
Additionally, I did not allow item 27—preparation and transmission of a notice
of change of solicitor—since Tariff B makes no mention of this type of document
and item 27, in my opinion, remains an exception, such as the written
representations filed following a status review under Rule 380 of the Federal
Courts Rules. The same will apply for item 27 for the preparation and
transmission of consent to an extension of time and the filing of pleadings.
[8]
The
disbursements are allowed in the amount of $151.93. I allowed disbursements for
the service of the respondent’s record in the amount of $135.93. As for the
cost of photocopies of the appeal book and authorities, I have only the
respondent’s 8-page record in evidence, so I have allowed 8 pages at $0.25 per
page x 8 copies for a total of $16. All the other disbursements for bailiff
fees for the production of documents to the Court seem to me to be part of an
office’s normal operating expenses, so they are not allowed. As for the
disbursements for the service of the notice of appearance and the service of a
notice of change of solicitor, the assessment officer cannot allow the fees for
these documents because they are not considered taxable. The cost of
photocopies of the motion record for the motion for an extension of time cannot
be allowed since the order of the Court dated March 1, 2007, remains silent in
this regard.
[9]
The
bill of costs of the respondent, Canada Post, filed at $4033.72, is allowed at
$1691.62. A certificate of taxation will be issued for this amount.
MONTRÉAL,
QUEBEC
August
29, 2008
DIANE PERRIER
ASSESSMENT
OFFICER
Certified
true translation
Sarah
Burns
FEDERAL
COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-426-06
BETWEEN:
GÉRARD MÉNARD
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
and
CANADA POST
Respondents
ASSESSMENT
OF COSTS IN WRITING
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec
REASONS
BY DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATED: August
29, 2008
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Mr.
Gérard Ménard for
the applicant
(on his own behalf)
Mr. Yvon Brisson for
the respondent
Canada
Post
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Grondin Poudrier Bernier for
the respondent
Montréal, Quebec Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Gowling
Lafleur Henderson for the
respondent
Email this Content