Hamlyn
J.T.C.C.:
-
This
is
a
motion
to
review
the
taxation
of
costs
of
this
matter.
The
Appellant
is
dissatisfied
with
the
taxation
of
costs
as
taxed
and
allowed
by
the
Registrar
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada.
This
review
proceeded
by
way
of
written
submissions.
The
Appellant
also
filed
an
Affidavit.
Annexed
to
this
Affidavit,
inter
alia,
was
the
written
submission
given
by
the
Appellant
to
the
Taxing
Officer
on
the
date
of
the
hearing
for
the
taxation
of
costs.
This
review
also
considered
the
judgment
in
this
matter
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
dated
the
9th
day
of
September
1993
in
particular
the
part
of
the
judgment
where
“costs
are
awarded
to
the
Crown”.
Further,
this
review
considered
both
the
Certificate
of
Costs
and
the
Reasons
for
Taxation
issued.
The
Certificate
of
Costs
reads
in
part
as
follows:
I
CERTIFY
that
I
have
taxed
the
party
and
party
costs
of
the
Respondent
in
this
proceeding
under
the
authority
of
subsection
153(1)
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Rules
(General
Procedure)
and,
I
allow
the
sum
of
$2,526.58.
In
his
submission
for
this
review,
the
Appellant
argued
as
follows:
The
grounds
of
the
motion
are:
that
the
officer
of
the
court
failed
to
comply
with
the
rule
154
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
Rules
(General
Procedure)
in
his
decision.
1.
In
the
certificate
of
costs,
the
taxing
officer
says,
that
he
taxed
the
party
and
the
party
costs
of
[the]
respondent
on
this
proceeding,
under
the
authority
of
subsection
153(1)
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
(General
Rules).
In
fact,
the
taxing
officer
taxed
under
the
authority
of
rule
154
taxation
of
costs
considerations
(a)
to
(d).
2.
The
counsel
for
the
respondent
requested
another
item,
under
Tariff
B,
class
B
(1)(b)
taxation
of
costs
for
$300
be
added.
And
this
was
taken
into
consideration,
and
the
Court
agreed
with
the
request
of
the
counsel
for
the
respondent.
3.
I
requested
that
I
be
heard,
and
I
was.
I
spoke
for
35
minuets
[minutes]
from
a
written
statement
on
the
reasons
why
I
felt
that
the
respondent
for
the
Crown,
should
not
receive
costs
at
this
hearing.
This
was
not
taken
into
consideration
in
the
decision
of
the
officer
dated
at
Ottawa,
Canada
on
the
24th
day
of
May.
The
Affidavit
and
submission
filed
outlined
further
the
Appellant’s
belief
that
the
Respondent’s
counsel
and
the
judge
on
the
appeal
acted
contrary
to
natural
justice,
and
that
the
taxation
of
costs
should
be
set
aside
until
an
appeal
of
the
matter
to
the
Federal
Court
of
Canada
is
heard.
The
Respondent
replied
as
follows:
3.
The
Reasons
for
Taxation
indicate
that
the
Appellant
was
permitted
to
present
his
submissions,
as
he
had
prepared
them,
to
the
taxing
officer.
The
Reasons
also
indicate
that
the
Bill
of
Costs
was
in
accordance
with
the
Tariff.
Each
of
the
items
on
the
Bill
of
Costs
was
for
services
of
counsel
and
the
only
disbursement
claimed
was
for
photocopying
in
the
amount
of
$26.58,
which
was
accounted
for
by
an
invoice.
4.
It
is
submitted
that
the
taxing
officer
made
no
error
in
principle,
he
did
not
err
in
law,
and
the
amounts
allowed
were
neither
inappropriate
nor
unreasonable.
As
such,
it
is
submitted
that
this
Honourable
Court
should
not
interfere
with
the
decision
of
the
taxing
officer.
Analysis
The
primary
question
on
a
review
of
this
nature
is
whether
the
Taxing
Officer
has
made
an
error
in
law
or
of
principle.
The
discretion
of
the
Taxation
Officer
should
not
be
interfered
with
unless
there
has
been
such
an
error.
The
Rules
of
Procedure
provide
for
the
taxation
of
costs.
Under
subsection
153(1),
the
Taxing
Officer
is
the
Registrar
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada.
This
provision
is
the
authority
for
the
Registrar
to
act
as
a
Taxing
Officer.
The
taxation
of
costs
was
conducted
before
the
Registrar.
In
addition
to
the
Bill
of
Costs,
the
Registrar
allowed
an
addition
at
the
request
of
the
Respondent
of
$300
for
the
taxation
of
costs.
He
heard
submissions
from
both
parties.
The
Registrar
found
in
his
Reasons
for
Taxation,
that
in
large
measure,
the
Appellant’s
submissions
were:
a
review
of
what
had
been
argued
at
the
trial
as
well
as
criticism
of
counsel
for
the
Respondent.
Mr.
Maher
did
not
deal
with
the
items
on
the
Bill
of
Costs
other
than
concluding
that
if
I
were
inclined
to
award
costs,
they
should
be
in
the
amount
of
$1.
The
Registrar
as
Taxing
Officer
allowed
in
the
taxation
only
those
amounts
permitted
by
Tariff
B,
class
B
(1)(b).
A
disbursement
for
photocopying
was
also
allowed.
Upon
this
review,
I
find
the
amounts
allowed
were
neither
inappropriate
nor
unreasonable.
Further,
I
find
the
Registrar
as
a
Taxing
Officer
did
consider
all
matters
raised
by
the
Appellant
and,
I
can
not
find
in
the
submissions
or
the
filed
Affidavit
in
this
proceeding
any
contravention
of
section
154
of
the
Rules
of
Procedure.
In
essence,
I
find
the
Registrar
as
the
Taxing
Officer
had
the
authority
to
act,
considered
all
submissions
and
has
not
acted
in
contravention
of
some
principle
of
law.
Conclusion
I
conclude,
the
taxation
of
costs
by
the
Registrar
as
the
Taxing
Officer
should
not
be
interfered
with.
Decision
The
review
is
dismissed.
Motion
dismissed.
Email this Content