Yiouroukis v. The Queen, 2003 TCC 377

Taxing Officer

REASONS FOR TAXATION

[1]      This taxation came on for hearing on April 15, 2002, by means of a telephone conference call. It follows a Judgment of Associate Chief Judge Bowman dated January 22, 1999, in which he dismissed the appeals from assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 taxation years, with costs. V. William Andreou represented the Appellant and James Rhodes represented the Respondent.

[2]     The Bill of Costs submitted by the Respondent is as follows:

* This figure was amended by the Taxation Officer from $120.98 to $120.91, which was the actual amount of the invoice.

[3]      Mr. Andreou consented to the following items on account of counsel fees and disbursements:

Accordingly, the amounts of $1,250.00 for counsel fees and $389.10 for disbursements are allowed.

[4]      The items in dispute are:

[5]      Mr. Rhodes stated that the claim for services prior to an examination for discovery of $250.00 was pursuant to Tariff B, Item 1.(1)(a). Mr. Andreou stated that he was disputing the Respondent's entitlement to this item, as no particulars were provided as to what this item encompassed. Mr. Rhodes did not provide any further details. Tariff B sets out the amounts that "may be allowed for services of counsel". The entitlement of a party to costs under Tariff B is not an automatic right. In the absence of a detailed explanation as to what the amount claimed represents, I will tax off the amount of $250.00 for services prior to an examination for discovery.

[6]      With respect to the next item of $250.00 for the status hearing, Mr. Andreou stated that the status hearing was probably one of many held on that day and found the amount claimed excessive. A review of the file disclosed that the parties attended a status hearing on June 9, 1998. The number of status hearings conducted on a particular day is irrelevant and I will allow the amount claimed of $250.00 for conduct of the status hearing.

[7]      The next item of $125.00 relates to services conducted following the Judgment. Mr. Rhodes stated that the claim for services rendered after judgment was pursuant to Tariff B, Item 1.(1)(e). Mr. Andreou stated that he was disputing the Respondent's entitlement to this item, as no particulars were provided as to what this Tariff item encompassed. Again, there was no explanation provided as to what the amount related to, and I will tax off this item.

[8]      The disbursement of $54.00 that is in dispute relates to a witness fee paid to Nick Rallis. Mr. Andreou requested that a cancelled cheque be produced, to prove that it was cashed, which was not available at this taxation. A review of the Minutes of Hearing disclosed that Mr. Rallis testified as a witness at the hearing. The invoice from the process server disclosed that a cheque was delivered to Mr. Rallis when the subpoena was served. Given the fact that Mr. Rallis attended to give evidence at the hearing, I can think of no reason why he would not have cashed the cheque. Accordingly, I will allow the disbursement of $54.00.

[9]      Mr. Andreou did not make any submissions with respect to the claim of $250.00 for this taxation of costs. Mr. Rhodes stated that two letters were sent to Mr. Andreou requesting payment of costs. As Mr. Andreou did not respond, this appointment for taxation was scheduled. I will allow the claim of $250.00 for this taxation.

[10]     The Bill of Costs of the Respondent is taxed and the amount of $2,193.10 is allowed. A certificate in that amount will be issued.

Signed at Toronto, Canada this 28th day of May 2003.

Taxing Officer