Marceau
J.:—We
are
all
of
the
view
that
this
appeal
is
well
founded.
The
learned
motions
judge
was
wrong
in
granting
the
respondents'
application
for
review
of
the
taxation
of
the
appellants’
costs
under
Rule
346
of
the
General
Rules
of
the
Court.
On
the
first
issue,
we
think
that
it
was
an
error
in
law
to
consider
that
the
steps
in
the
proceeding
were
properly
classified
as
Class
Il
under
paragraph
1
(3)(b)
of
Tariff
A
contained
in
the
Appendix
to
the
Rules
rather
than
as
Class
111
under
paragraph
1
(3)(d)
as
found
by
the
taxing
officer.
Subsection
1(3)
reads
as
follows:
1.(3)
Unless
the
Court
otherwise
directs
in
respect
of
a
particular
step
in
a
proceeding,
or
in
respect
of
all
steps
in
a
particular
proceeding,
(a)
where
a
step
is
a
step
in
a
proceeding
other
than
a
proceeding
to
which
paragraph
(b)
applies
in
which
there
is
an
amount
involved
on
the
face
of
the
proceedings
that
is
less
than
$5,000,
it
shall
be
classified
as
a
Class
I
step;
(b)
where
a
step
is
a
step
in
a
proceeding
that
is,
or
was
in
its
inception,
an
appeal
of
the
Trial
Division
or
any
other
proceeding
in
the
Trial
Division
where
no
judgment
is
being
sought
for
payment
of
an
ascertained
amount,
it
shall
be
classified
as
a
Class
II
step;
(c)
where
a
step
is
a
step
in
a
proceeding
in
which
there
is
an
amount
involved
on
the
face
of
the
proceedings
that
is
$5,000
or
more
and
less
than
$50,000,
it
shall
be
classified
as
a
Class
II
step;
(d)
where
a
step
is
a
step
in
a
proceeding
not
otherwise
covered
by
this
paragraph,
it
shall
be
classified
as
a
Class
III
step.
Even
if
only
non-monetary
relief
was
granted
by
the
final
judgment
which
disposed
of
the
action,
this
action
as
instituted
was
seeking
damages
in
the
amount
of
$50,000
and
the
award
of
costs
was
made
without
any
qualification.
It
seems
to
us
that
the
use
in
subsection
1(3)
of
the
phrases
"amount
involved
on
the
face
of
the
proceedings”
and
"in
its
inception”
is
clear
indication
that
in
the
absence
of
directions
to
the
contrary
in
the
final
judgment,
the
classification
of
an
action
for
the
purpose
of
costs
requires
consideration
of
all
the
reliefs
sought
at
the
time
it
is
instituted.
As
to
the
second
issue,
we
think
that,
once
the
conclusion
had
been
reached
that
the
taxing
officer
had
been
right
in
adding
to
the
bill
of
costs
an
item
for
photocopying
disbursements
considered
by
him
as
having
been
essential
for
the
conduct
of
the
action,
the
learned
motions
judge
had
no
reason
to
intervene.
The
amounts
allowed
were
not
so
inappropriate
as
to
suggest
that
an
error
of
principle
had
been
committed
in
their
calculation.
The
appeal
will
therefore
be
allowed,
the
decision
of
the
learned
motions
judge
will
be
set
aside
and
the
decision
of
the
taxing
officer
will
be
reinstated.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content