Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency v. Apex Copy Centre, 2006 FC 101

Date: 20060131

Docket: T-1788-04

Citation: 2006 FC 101

BETWEEN:

THE CANADIAN COPYRIGHT LICENSING AGENCY

("ACCESS COPYRIGHT")

                                                                                                                                               Plaintiff

and

APEX COPY CENTRE, BLOOR COPY CENTRE

And LAC VAN NGUYEN (aka KEVIN WYANE)

Defendants

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

PAUL G.C. ROBINSON

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]                This is an assessment of costs pursuant to a March 14^th, 2005 Order of the Federal Court in regard to the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment relating to a statement of claim alleging copyright infringement. The Court granted the motion and ordered that "[T]he Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff its costs of this action, including GST, to be assessed at the high end of column V of the Tariff of Fees".

[2]                The Plaintiff filed its Bill of Costs on May 6, 2005.

[3]                On June 13^th, 2005, a letter was issued setting a timetable for written submissions and the filing of all materials. The Plaintiff complied with the timeframes for the filing of the affidavit in support, written submissions and revised Bill of Costs.

[4]                It should be noted that the directions setting out a timetable for the serving and filing of all materials were sent to the Plaintiff's and Defendants' solicitors of record. In addition, the Defendants' solicitor of record was contacted by the Toronto Registry regarding the timetable for the filing of materials in opposition to the Plaintiff's Bill of Costs. However, the Defendants did not respond to the Plaintiff's materials within the timeframes allowed. Therefore, it is appropriate that I proceed with the assessment of costs.

[5]                In this, as in all assessments of costs proceedings, I must take a position of neutrality. An Assessment Officer may neither advocate for any one party, nor allow assessable services and disbursements which fall outside of the Federal Courts Rules and the associated tariffs. In addition, I must adhere to the intent of any decision of the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal which awards costs or gives directions to an assessment officer regarding specific issues which may be considered.

[6]                In the Bill of Costs, the Plaintiff has claimed 9 units for Item 24 - Travel by counsel to attend motion for Anton Piller Order in Ottawa, Ontario). Item 24 of Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules, actually reads:

24. Travel by counsel to attend a trial, hearing, motion, examination or analogous procedure at the Direction of the Court.

I rely on the reasons in Beaulieu v. Canada, [2000] F.C.J. 2127 (TO) at paragraph 10:

... In item 24 of the bill of costs the respondent claimed the sum of $500 for travel by counsel. In her written submissions in reply Ms. Lavergne was prepared to reduce this amount to $100. At the same time, the appellant based her objection on the phrase "at the discretion of the Court" contained in item 24, which she submitted did not extend to the assessment officer where no specific directions to that effect had been given. The appellant is correct: only judges have the discretionary authority to compensate counsel for travel.

I have reviewed the material in the Court record and have determined that no such direction exists, therefore Item 24 is disallowed.

[7]                The remaining 76.5 units ($8,415.00) for the assessable services are allowed in their entirety since in my opinion they were reasonable, necessary for this proceeding and have been justified by the Plaintiff's Written Submissions and the supporting affidavit of A. Louise McLean sworn June 23, 2005.

[8]                The Plaintiff has claimed disbursements in the amount of $8,786.07. I note there may have been items which could possibly have been challenged by the Defendants but were not. In my opinion, the Plaintiff has substantiated its respective disbursements with its affidavit and submissions and I allow the $8,786.07 for disbursements.

[9]                The Plaintiff's Bill of Costs in T-1788-04 is assessed and allowed in the amount of $18,404.14 which includes assessable services of $8,415.00, disbursements of $8,786.07 and applicable GST of $1,204.07. A certificate is issued in this Federal Court proceeding for $18,404.14 payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.

             "Paul Robinson"

Toronto, Ontario

January 31, 2006

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           T-1788-04                   

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           THE CANADIAN COPYRIGHT LICENSING AGENCY

("ACCESS COPYRIGHT")

Plaintiff

                                                            and

                                                APEX COPY CENTRE, BLOOR COPY CENTRE

And LAC VAN NGUYEN (aka KEVIN WYANE)

Defendants

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -                        

REASONS BY:                                   PAUL G.C. ROBINSON, Assessment Officer

DATED:                                              JANUARY 31, 2006

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

BENNETT JONES LLP                                   FOR THE PLAINTIFF                                    

Toronto, Ontario

MANG, STEINBERG                          FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Barristers, Solicitors, Notaries                                       

Toronto, Ontario