Liddle v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 283

Docket: 2005-3409(GST)G

BETWEEN:

THOMAS GERALD (GERRY) LIDDLE,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

CERTIFICATE OF COSTS

I CERTIFY that I have taxed the party and party costs of the Respondent in the proceeding under the authority of subsection 153(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) and I ALLOW THE SUM of $10,493.94.

Signed at Toronto, Canada, this 27^th day of July 2012.

"Barbara Tanasychuk"

Citation: 2012 TCC 283

Date: 20120727

Docket: 2005-3409(GST)G

BETWEEN:

THOMAS GERALD (GERRY) LIDDLE,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

REASONS FOR TAXATION

Barbara Tanasychuk, T.O., T.C.C.

[1]   This taxation of costs came on for hearing by way of a telephone conference call on June 27, 2012. It followed a Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice Campbell issued on September 11, 2009, wherein the Respondent was awarded costs. The Appellant represented himself and Ms. Justine Malone represented the Respondent.

[2]   The only item disputed by Mr. Liddle was the disbursement in the amount of $1,881.01 for witness fees and travel expenses. Mr. Liddle stated that the cost of the airfare was unreasonable.

[3]   Ms. Malone stated that the amount disputed by Mr. Liddle represented witness fees, airfare, change fees, accommodation, meals and American Express fees. Ms. Malone referred to the documents attached as Exhibit “G” to the Affidavit of Louise Hamelin, sworn March 5, 2012, filed for use on this taxation of costs.

[4]   Mr. Liddle stated that he did not have the Affidavit of Louise Hamelin before him. As a result, the taxation was adjourned so that the documentation to support the disputed amount could be forwarded to Mr. Liddle. The documentation was forwarded to Mr. Liddle on June 27, 2012 and a schedule for exchanging written submissions was established.

[5]   Mr. Liddle did not file any submissions and the time for doing so has passed. Ms. Malone’s filed submissions on July 12, 2012, in which she stated that the ticket booked for the witness to travel to and from the hearing location was a refundable ticket. She further stated that it was the general practice to book refundable tickets, to avoid losing the amount paid for a ticket, should a hearing be cancelled. In addition, Ms. Malone stated that the amount of $147.00 of the total amount claimed was, in all probability, the fee differential charged when the witness’ flight was changed. She further stated that the various amounts charged by American Express, in all likelihood, related to fees charged as a result of changes made to the flight booking.

DECISION:

[6]   Apart from Mr. Liddle’s oral statement that the amount paid for the witness’ airfare was excessive, he has not made any other submissions to substantiate his opposition to the amount claimed for witness fees and expenses. I accept Malone’s explanation as to how the amount claimed for witness fees and expenses was arrived at. I am satisfied that the disbursement was essential for the conduct of the proceeding. I will accordingly allow the amount of $1,881.01 for witness fees and expenses.

[7]   The disbursements claimed for process server fees and transcripts were supported by copies of invoices attached as exhibits to the Affidavit of Louise Hamelin and the amount claimed for photocopies was reasonable. I am satisfied that these disbursements were essential and are allowed.

[8]   The counsel fees claimed in the amount of $5,775.00 were in accordance with Schedule II, Tariff B of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) and are allowed.

[9]   The Bill of Costs of the Respondent is taxed and $10,493.94 is allowed.

Signed at Toronto, Canada, this 27^th day of July 2012.

"Barbara Tanasychuk"