Geropoulos v. R., [1999] 2 CTC 2326

Tanasychuk T.O.:

This taxation came on for hearing on January 19, 1999, by means of a telephone conference call. It follows a Judgment of the Honourable Judge Sarchuk dated May 1, 1998 wherein, among other things, costs were awarded to the Appellant. Mr. Roger E. Ball, C.A. represented the Appellant at the hearing and this taxation and Ms. Annette Evans represented the Respondent.

The Bill of Costs as submitted by the Appellant is as follows:

A. For services of counsel I claim the following:

(a) preparation of notice of appeal, $150.00 (b) preparation of hearing, $200.00 (c) conducting the hearing $300.00

(d) for taxation of costs, $ 50.00

B. For witnesses’ fees I claim the follow NIL

ing:

C. For expert witnesses I claim the fol NIL

lowing:

D. Other disbursements: $49.00 (GST)

Attached is a copy of the invoice for counsel/agents fees paid to Roger Ball, C.A.

The items claimed under the heading “for services of counsel” follow the wording of section 11 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (Informal Procedure) (hereinafter the “Rules”). Mr. Ball stated that the amounts claimed are on account of his representation of Mr. Geropolous in this matter.

In response to Mr. Ball’s submissions, Ms. Evans stated that the Appellant was not entitled to recover any amounts on account of services of counsel, as the Appellant was not represented by a barrister, solicitor or advocate.

In reply to Ms. Evans’ submissions, Mr. Ball stated that he would like to claim the amount of his account to the Appellant of $2,900.00 (plus $203.00 for GST) as a disbursement. While Ms. Evans had no objection to Mr. Ball amending the Bill of Costs in this manner, she was not prepared to make submissions on the amended Bill of Costs at this time.

The Appellant’s Bill of Costs was amended to delete the claim for counsel fees and to include a claim for disbursements as follows:

D. Other Disbursements:

Paid to agent	$2,900.00
GST	$ 203.00
TOTAL	$3,103.00

Upon amending the Bill of Costs, the taxation was adjourned until later in the day and resumed at 3:00 p.m.

Mr. Ball stated that the Appellant is entitled to recover the amount he paid to obtain representation at the trial. Mr. Ball argued that the disbursement the Appellant incurred was a necessary expense.

Ms. Evans’ position was that the amount the Appellant paid to his accountant for representation at trial could not be allowed as a disbursement. In support of this assertion, Ms. Evans referred to Burstow v. R. (1997), [1998] 2 C.T.C. 2746 (T.C.C.) and the Munro v. R. (unreported), F.C.A., A- 570-97, July 3, 1998 [reported [1998] 4 C.T.C. 89 (Fed. C.A.)].

While the amount the Appellant paid to Mr. Ball for representation may have contributed to his success in this litigation, the Rules do not provide for the allowance of fees paid to an accountant for representation as a disbursement. If the amount of Mr. Ball’s account was allowed as a disbursement, it would result in his recovery of more than what the Rules permit a party to recover when represented by counsel. Accordingly, I will tax off the amount of $3,103.00

While it may be of little comfort to Mr. Ball and the Appellant, the outcome of this taxation of costs would have been the same regardless of whether the claim for Mr. Ball’s services was put forward as “counsel fees” or a “disbursement”. In the case of Edgar v. R., [1994] 1 C.T.C. 2562 (T.C.C.), (then) Associate Chief Judge Christie of this Court confirmed that accountant’s fees should be disallowed when claimed as counsel fees under Section 11 of the Rules.

The Bill of Costs of the Appellant in the amount of $3,103.00 is taxed and no amount is allowed. A certificate will be issued.

Application dismissed.