Date: 20231117
Docket: T-836-17
Citation: 2023 FC 1514
BETWEEN: |
CANADIAN MARITIME ENGINEERING
LTD., A BODY CORPORATE |
Plaintiff |
and |
IONADA INCORPORATED,
A BODY CORPORATE |
Defendant |
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT
Stéphanie St-Pierre Babin, Assessment Officer
I. Background
[1] By way of Order dated June 22, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s interlocutory motion to compel answers and attendance for examination in aid of execution filed on November 10, 2022, and provided the following instructions as to costs:
6. Costs on this motion are awarded to the Plaintiff and are fixed in the middle of Column III of Tariff B.
[2] Following this Order, the Plaintiff filed its Bill of Costs on June 30, 2023. Consequently, a direction providing the parties with the deadlines to file their written representations was issued on July 5, 2023. As the time limits have now expired, the court record shows that neither party filed written representations with regard to the assessment of costs.
[3] The absence of representations by both parties results in the Plaintiff’s Bill of costs being unopposed. In such cases, my duty as an assessment officer is to consider the Bill of Costs to ensure it complies with the procedural steps followed in the proceeding, the Rules and the applicable jurisprudence, without stepping away from my position of neutrality (Dahl v Canada, 2007 FC 194, at para 2).
[4] Having read the case law regarding Bills of Costs filed at the interlocutory stage of a matter, I conclude that I cannot proceed with the assessment of costs at this point. In fact, the
Federal Court consistently held that costs awarded on an interlocutory motion are not payable until the conclusion of a trial unless the Court specifically orders that costs are payable forthwith (Buck v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 352, paras 16‒17; John Stagliano, Inc v Elmaleh, 2006 FC 1096, para 8; Waterfurnace Inc v 803943 Ontario Ltd, [1991] FCJ No 912). In so doing, this principle prevents a “multiplicity of assessments in the course of an action”
(Nature's Path Foods Inc v Country Fresh Enterprises Inc, [1999] FCJ No 827, para 3).
[5] In the absence of specific directions from the Court awarding costs to be payable forthwith in the Order dated June 22, 2023, I am of the opinion that the assessment of the Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs is premature and will not take place at this stage of the proceedings.
“Stéphanie St-Pierre Babin”
Email this Content