Citation: 2007TCC385
Date: 20070627
Docket: 2003-1401(IT)G
BETWEEN:
MARK WELFORD,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR TAXATION
Alan Ritchie, T.O., T.C.C.
[1] This matter came on
for hearing by way of a telephone conference call on Tuesday June 26, 2007. It
follows an Order of the Honourable Chief Justice Bowman of this Court dated
October 31, 2006, which adjourned the motion sine die, with costs to the
Respondent in any event of the cause.
[2] The Respondent was
represented by Mr. Ifeanyi Nwachukwu, and the Appellant represented himself.
[3] The Appellant
disputed three items on the Respondent’s Bill of Costs.
[4] TWO SUBPOENAS: The
above mentioned Order followed a hearing before the Honourable Chief Justice in
Toronto on October 25th,
2006 which involved a Motion to Dismiss brought by the Respondent. The
Respondent had served Mr. Welford, the Appellant, with a subpoena in order
to ensure he would appear as a witness at the hearing.
[5] Mr. Welford argued
that he had to be present in any event, that it was his appeal before the
Court, and that to serve him with a subpoena was “a waste of time, money and
effort” and he believed it should be taxed off. He also noted that there was a
subpoena issued to an employee of TD Canada Trust who not only was not called
as a witness, but was not present at the hearing. He believed this amount
should be taxed off as well.
[6] Mr. Nwachukwu took
the position that it was not unusual for the Appellant to be so served, and
that in fact it was the only way to ensure that he be compelled to be present
to be examined, and that the amount should be allowed. With respect to the
second subpoena, he stated that there was no evidence that the bank employee
was not physically present at the hearing, and that the fact she was not called
was immaterial.
[7] I agree with Counsel
for the Respondent with respect to the subpoena for the bank employee. Whether
or not she ultimately presented herself or was called as a witness, the amount
claimed in the Bill of Costs is a proper one and I will allow it. However, I
cannot agree with his position with respect to the subpoena served on the
Appellant. It is the Appellant’s appeal before the Court, and one must presume
that he/she will be present to move matters forward. Had the Appellant not
appeared at the hearing, the Court would have dealt with the matter at that
point. If there were extenuating circumstances in this instance which obliged
the Respondent to proceed as they did, they were not brought forward to me. I
will disallow the amount of $165.75 for service of the subpoena on Mr. Welford.
[8] PHOTOCOPIES: The
Respondent claimed 545 copies at $0.20 per page for a total of $109.00 as noted
in an Affidavit of Disbursements of Janice Joiner of the Department of
Justice. This was for the photocopies made in relation to the hearing of the
Motion.
[9] Mr. Welford
questioned the purpose of the photocopies, and that whatever material it might
be was not submitted to the Court nor to him. He allowed that the copies were
likely produced, however that the amount claimed should be disallowed as they
were not directly used at the hearing. Mr. Nwachukwu referred me to the
aforementioned Affidavit and submitted that this was a proper claim.
[10] As a general
practice, law firms and the Department of Justice track the number of photocopies
of documents made with respect to a particular file, and Tariff B of the Rules
of the Court allow an amount of $0.20 per page. Such claims for copies made,
accompanied by an Affidavit of Disbursements, are regularly allowed on a Bill
of Costs and I have no reason to believe they should not be allowed in this
instance.
[11] The Respondent’s
Bill of Costs in the amount of $4,450.21 is taxed, and $4,284.46 is allowed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 27th day of June 2007.
"Alan Ritchie"
Email this Content