DATE: 19990610
Dossier: 97-3668-IT-I
ENTRE :
GILLES TREMBLAY,
appelant,
et
SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE,
intimée.
Motifs de taxation
R.P. Guenette, C.C.I.
[1]
This taxation follows a judgment of the Honourable Judge Lamarre
dated June 11th, 1998 allowing the
Appellant's appeal with costs. The Appellant represented
himself, and the Respondent was represented by
Me Anne-Marie Desgens. The matter
proceeded by telephone conference call on April 20, 1999.
[2]
The Appellant's Bill of Costs includes various amounts for
fees for the services of counsel in the amount of $1,300. The
Bill of Costs is reproduced below:
MÉMOIRE DE FRAIS
(Procédure informelle) (Article
13)
Voici mon mémoire de frais pour
l'appel susmentionné.
D.
Autres débours :
a) la préparation de l'avis d'appel par
l'appelant. 150.00$
b) la préparation de l'audience par
l'appelant.
200.00$
c)
l'audience.
300.00$
d) la taxation des
dépens.
50.00$
e) la préparation
des dossiers pour les procureurs généraux des 12
provinces et territoires du Canada en fonction de l'article
57 de la cour Fédéral. (préparation, copie,
courrier; pour un dossier = 50,00$)
12 dossiers à
50.00$
600.00$
__________
1,300.00$
[3]
The Appellant submitted a receipt for one of the registered
letters sent to each of the Attorneys General in the amount of
$21.82. He noted that the amount of $50.00 claimed under item e)
included the $21.82 for postage and the difference was for his
effort in preparing and sending the letters.
[4]
Counsel for the Respondent agreed to the $21.82 postage for each
letter that was supported by receipts. The Appellant agreed at
the taxation to provide counsel for the Respondent and the Court
with copies of all the receipts for the registered letters sent.
Counsel for the Respondent objected to the $28.18 difference and
all the other amounts claimed for the services of counsel as the
Appellant represented himself throughout the appeal process. She
noted that under section 10 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules
(Informal Procedure) (hereinafter the
"Rules") that fees are permitted only for the
services of counsel, and that Mr. Tremblay was not a
"...person who may practise as a barrister, advocate,
attorney or solicitor in any of the provinces;" as set out
by (then) Associate Chief Judge Christie in Edgar v.
Canada [1994] 1 C.T.C. 2562. She also referred me to
Bernard Luc Charron v. The Queen [T.C.C. 96-4168(IT)I] in
which the Taxing Officer denied fees for the services of counsel
to a self-represented lawyer.
[5]
Mr. Tremblay argued that the judge had awarded him his costs
under section 18.26 of the Tax Court of Canada Act, and that he
was as entitled to the fees claimed as a lawyer would be. He
stated that everyone should be treated equally before the Court,
that we are all equal in the eyes of the law as set out in
section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[6]
Counsel for the Respondent did not agree that to deny the
Appellant fees for the services of counsel would be in
contravention of the Charter. She referred me to the case
Lenhardt v. M.N.R. [T.C.C. 88-8(IT)I] of this Court where
the same Charter issue was raised.
[7]
This issue was dealt wth in Davidson v. Canada [1989] 2
F.C. 341 (F.C.A.) by the Honourable Mr. Justice Mahoney. In that
case, the self-represented litigant was a lawyer. He reasoned as
follows:
Section 15 of the Charter provides:
15.(1) Every individual is equal before and under the
law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit
of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without
discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour,
religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
This Court's basic approach to the interpretation of
that section was stated in Smith, Kline & French
Laboratories Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1987] 2 F.C.
359(C.A.), at page 368.
[Section 15] only proscribes discrimination amongst the
members of categories which are themselves similar. Thus the
issue, for each case, will be to know which categories are
permissible in determining similarity of situation and which are
not. It is only in those cases where the categories themselves
are not permissible, where equals are not treated equally, that
there will be a breach of equality rights.
The issue here is whether a barrister and solicitor who
represents himself in litigation is most similar in the context
of section 15 to a self-represented lay litigant or to a
professionally represented litigant.
In my opinion, that barrister and solicitor is
primarily a self-represented litigant and, for purposes of
taxation of costs, is to be so treated. It seems to me patently
more offensive to the concept of equality before the law to treat
one self-represented litigant differently from another only
because one is a barrister and solicitor than to treat two
self-represented litigants the same even though one is a
barrister and solicitor.
I would therefore direct that, in taxing his costs,
here and in the Trial Division, the respondent is not entitled to
costs under Tariff B, subsection 2(1).
[8]
Based on the above, if a self-represented lawyer is not entitled
to fees for the services of counsel, neither is the
self-represented individual who is not a barrister and solicitor.
He is being treated equally with respect to every other
self-represented litigant. Therefore, I do not accept his
argument that the Rules are in contravention of the Charter. That
having been decided, as stated in Edgar, (supra),
self-represented litigants are not entitled to claim fees for the
services of counsel. I will tax off items a) through d) for a
total of $700.00.
[9] I
will allow only the amounts agreed to by counsel for the
Respondent, namely $21.82 for each of the twelve letters sent to
the Attorneys General of the provinces for a total of $261.84. A
certificate in the amount of $261.84 will be issued.
" R.P. Guenette "
Registrar
Signé à Ottawa, Canada,
ce th jour de juin 1999.
Email this Content