Citation: 2011 TCC 17
Date: 20110111
Docket: 2004-396(IT)G
BETWEEN:
PATRICIA NORTON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR TAXATION
Bruce Preston, T.O., T.C.C.
[1] This taxation came on for hearing by way of a telephone
conference call on Thursday, December 9, 2010. It follows the decision of the
Honourable Justice Archambault of this Court dismissing the appeal, with costs
to the Respondent.
[2] The Appellant was self-represented, and the Respondent
was represented by Mr. Robert Carvalho.
[3] Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Court awarded
party and party costs and that the bill was prepared in accordance with Tariff
B of the Tax Court of
Canada Rules (General Procedure). It was further submitted that the fees
and disbursements claimed are straight forward.
[4] The Appellant submitted that the charge for photocopying
seems excessive and unnecessary. It was argued that $3,944.12 for photocopies
is almost the same as the amount claimed for counsel fees. It was also
submitted that the disbursements for courier and service are excessive. The
Appellant’s final submission concerned the counsel fee for services after
judgment. Ms. Norton submitted that it was not clear what services were
provided that justified $150.00.
[5] Concerning photocopies, counsel for the Respondent
submitted that the Request to Admit documents contained a number of documents
which required authentication. Counsel contended that the Respondent was
required to bring two motions; one concerning service of the Request to Admit
and a second for an order dismissing the appeal for refusal to produce the
Appellant’s documents. It was further argued that the Respondents were required
to provide the Appellant with copies of all the documents contained in the
Request to Admit and that the Respondent prepared a joint book of documents for
the hearing of the appeal all of which required substantial photocopying.
[6] Concerning courier and service charges, counsel for the
Respondent submitted that these charges related to the attempted service of the
Respondent’s Request to Admit and the Respondent’s motions. Counsel submitted
that the Respondent had a great deal of difficulty serving the Appellant and
referred to the motion requesting that the Court order that service of the
Request to Admit was effective as of February 5, 2007 in support of this.
[7] Counsel for the Respondent concluded by submitting that
a successful party is entitled to claim for services after judgment under
Tariff B. Counsel submitted that the work counsel are required to perform after
judgment includes communication with the client, closing the file and the
return of exhibits.
[8] Concerning services of counsel, the only item in dispute is
services after judgment. Counsel for the Respondent has provided justification
for the claim based on services which I find to be reasonable and necessary.
[9] The Appellant has raised concerns about the Respondent’s
disbursements relating to courier, service and photocopying. Having reviewed
the file, the decisions of the Court and the Affidavit of Disbursements of Olinda
Samuel, I find that the amounts claimed for courier and service have been
justified. Further the amounts claimed for the delivery and service of
documents are reasonable and necessary in the circumstances of this particular
file.
[10] Concerning photocopying, I am in agreement with the
Appellant that the amount claimed seems excessive. A review of the invoices
attached as Exhibit D to the Affidavit of Disbursements of Olinda Samuel
reveals that the cost of photocopying includes substantial amounts for
collating, punching holes and binders. The total expenditure for collating
alone was in excess of $2,300.00. Although it is recognized that these services
were paid for and that collating and some form of binding is necessary, I find
that the amount claimed is not reasonable. For these reasons I allow $2,500.00
for photocopying.
[11] As the Appellant made no submissions concerning the other
services of counsel and disbursements claimed, they will be allowed as
presented.
[12] For
the above reasons, the Bill of Costs is taxed, and I allow the sum of
$8,096.80.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 11th day of January, 2011.
“Bruce Preston”
Email this Content