Haggart v. Canada, 2005 FCA 174

Date: 20050511

Docket: A-209-03

Citation: 2005 FCA 174

BETWEEN:

                                                           DAVID D. HAGGART

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                         - and -

                                                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                            ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]                This application for judicial review, challenging a decision of the Tax Court of Canada denying the Applicant entitlement to claim an input tax credit for GST on legal services paid to pursue litigation in tort, was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondent's bill of costs.

[2]                The Applicant's submissions presumed that he had been asked to submit an account for his litigation costs, ie. $3,573.55. There is no authority for him to assess costs as against the Respondent: his application was unsuccessful and costs were awarded against him, not to him.

He advanced a physician's report dated about four years ago and argued that his health problems and advanced age preclude any income other than his old age security and therefore he is without means to pay any costs. The Respondent argued that the fees and disbursements claimed were reasonably necessary in the conduct of this matter and noted that counsel fees are claimed at the low end of Column III of Tariff B.

Assessment

[3]                The record discloses that the Respondent twice contacted the Applicant for payment before initiating an assessment of costs. The reality for the Applicant is that the Court has exercised its Rule 400(1) jurisdiction for costs adverse to his interest and I do not have any jurisdiction to interfere with that result. I allow the disbursements, which are supported by invoices, as claimed at $505.99.

[4]                I concluded at paragraph [7] in Starlight v. Canada, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1376 (A.O.) that the same point in the ranges throughout the tariff need not be used, as each item for the services of counsel is discrete and must be considered in its own circumstances. As well, broad distinctions may be required between an upper versus lower allowance from available ranges. I think that this litigation was straightforward and warrants only minimum allowances generally for counsel fees. The exceptions are for items 2 (record) and 13(a) (preparation), which I allow at 5 and 3 units respectively, each being 1 unit above the minimum value available. The Respondent's amended bill of costs, presented at $2,375.99, is assessed and allowed at $2,155.99.

(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"

Assessment Officer

                                                  FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                            NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          A-209-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          DAVID D. HAGGART

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE

OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                     CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED:                                                                                  May 11, 2005

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

John H. Sims, Q.C.                                                                   for Respondent

Deputy Attorney General of Canada