Date: 20020124
Docket: 2000-2732-IT-I
BETWEEN:
ERICA GAMUS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasonsfor
Taxation
Tanasychuk B., T.O., T.C.C.
[1]
This taxation came on for hearing on October 22, 2001 by means of
a telephone conference call. It follows a Judgment of the
Honourable Judge Bowman, Associate Chief Judge, dated
May 11, 2001, in which he allowed the appeals made under the
Income Tax Act, with costs, if any, in accordance with the
Tariff under the Informal Procedure Rules.
Mr. Abraham Gamus represented the Appellant and Ms.
Meghan Castle, represented the Respondent.
[2]
The Bill of Costs submitted by the Appellant is as follows:
This is my bill of costs in the above appeal.
Copies
450 pp @
0.08
$ 36.00
Parking
6.00
Postage
9.84
Preparation of notice of
appeal
150.00
Preparation for
hearing
200.00
Conduct of
hearing
600.00
Taxation of
costs
50.00
TOTAL
$1,051.84
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. GAMUS:
[3]
The claim for photocopies totalling $36.00 represents the cost of
reproducing documents, which were filed as Exhibits at hearing,
copies of which were also provided to counsel for the Respondent.
Mr. Gamus stated that he and his wife drove to Court on the
morning of the hearing and incurred a $6.00 parking charge. The
cost for two people to travel to and from the Court by way of
public transit would have exceeded the $6.00 being claimed for
parking. Two Canada Post receipts were produced, each in the
amount of $4.92, for registered letters sent to the Tax Court of
Canada at Toronto. Receipts for the photocopies and parking were
misplaced and not produced.
[4]
Mr. Gamus made lengthy representations concerning the claim for
counsel fees. He was requested to and provided a copy of those
submissions to counsel for the Respondent and myself, at the
conclusion of the telephone conference call.
[5]
In summary, Mr. Gamus, who is not a lawyer, represented the
Appellant, his wife, throughout this proceeding. Mr. Gamus
stated that allowing only lawyers to recover counsel fees under
Rule 11 is discriminatory. It is his opinion that since the Rules
permit a lay person to represent an Appellant, they should also
be entitled to recover fees for representing the Appellant.
Reference was made to jurisprudence from the Ontario Courts,
which he stated stood for the proposition that he is entitled to
recover counsel fees.
SUBMISSIONS BY MS. CASTLE:
[6]
With respect to disbursements, Ms. Castle stated that, according
to her recollection, there were not an extensive number of
exhibits filed at hearing. As such, the claim for 450 copies
appeared excessive and suggested that the number of copies
produced would not have exceeded 25 pages. She also noted that no
receipt for the copies was produced.
[7] Ms.
Castle stated that no receipts for the parking and postage were
produced to substantiate this claim. However, receipts totalling
$9.84 for postage were subsequently produced. In summary,
Ms. Castle stated that Rule 12(3) permits the allowance
of disbursements if they are essential for the conduct of the
appeal and if it is established that they were made or that the
party is liable for them. It is her position that Mr. Gamus has
not proven that the disbursements were essential for the conduct
of the appeal, and in the absence of receipts, she is not
satisfied that they were made or that Mr. Gamus is liable for
them.
[8]
Ms. Castle stated that Mr. Gamus is not entitled to recover
counsel fees, as he does not fall within the definition of
"counsel" in Section 2 of the Rules. In support of this
position she referred to Munro v. R. (1998) D.T.C. 6443
(Fed C.A.) and Kew v. The Queen [2001] T.C.J. No. 116
(QL).
DECISION:
[9] I
agree with the submissions of Ms. Castle. "Counsel" is
defined as a person who may practise as a barrister, advocate,
attorney or solicitor in any of the provinces. As Mr. Gamus is
not a lawyer, he is not entitled to recover counsel fees. I will
accordingly tax off the full amount claimed for counsel fees of
$1,000.00.
[10] With
respect to the disbursements, I will allow the sum of $9.84 for
postage.
[11] As there
was no receipt produced to support the claim of $6.00 for
parking, and in the absence of agreement of counsel for the
Respondent, I will not allow it. The sum of $6.00 is taxed
off.
[12] With
respect to the $36.00 claim for photocopies, while the amount
claimed per page is modest, no corroborating receipt was
produced. A review of the Tax Court of Canada Minutes disclosed
that the Appellant filed fourteen exhibits at trial, most of
which consisted of multiple pages. In the case of El-Hennawy
v. Canada, [2001] T.C.J. No. 358
(QL), The Honourable Judge Sarchuk reviewed a
decision of a Taxing Officer, in which a claim for photocopies
was disallowed. In the review, His Honour referred to the
Minutes maintained at hearing, which indicated that the Appellant
had filed books of documents and authorities at hearing. As such,
he found it was not reasonable to have taxed off the photocopying
charges and ordered that the Certificate of Costs be amended to
allow the photocopy charges.
[13] I am
satisfied that numerous copies were made which were essential for
the conduct of the appeal. It is not reasonable to disallow the
claim for the photocopies, given the fact that the Minutes
disclosed that numerous documents were filed at hearing. As such,
I will allow the full amount claimed of $36.00.
[14] The Bill
of Costs of the Appellant in the amount of $1,051.84 is taxed and
$45.84 is allowed. A certificate will be issued.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 24th day of January 2002.
"B.G. Tanasychuk"
Taxing Officer
Email this Content