Date: 20060605
Docket: T-1993-04
Citation: 2006 FC 701
BETWEEN:
ANNA CHOW
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
PAUL G.C. ROBINSON
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1] This is an assessment of costs pursuant to a January 5, 2006 Order of the Federal Court in regard to the Respondent's motion, made in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, in which the Federal Court ordered:
1. The Applicant's application record, filed September 30, 2005, is hereby struck, without leave to amend.
2. The Applicant's judicial review application is hereby dismissed, the whole with costs of the motion and of the application payable by the Applicant to the Respondent.
[2] The Respondent filed its Bill of Costs on March 1, 2006.
[3] On March 6, 2006, a letter was issued setting a timetable for the filing of all materials in support and in opposition to the Respondent's Bill of Costs. The Respondent complied with the timeframes for the filing of an Amended Bill of Costs and materials in support.
[4] It should be noted that the directions setting out a timetable for the serving and filing of all materials were sent regular mail to the Applicant's and Respondent's respective addresses for service. In fact, in an abundance of caution, my directions regarding the timetable for the filing of all materials was sent to the Applicant at two mailing addresses of which one is in Nepean, Ontario and other in Richmond Hill, Ontario. Neither of these two letters was returned by Canada Post to the Toronto Registry so I have assumed the Applicant received my correspondence. However, the Applicant did not respond within the timeframes allowed to any of the materials filed by the Respondent.
[5] In this, as in all assessment 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 Amended Bill of Costs, the Respondent has claimed 2 units and 2 units respectively for its Item 4 (Preparation and filing of an uncontested motion, including materials and responses thereto - May 5, 2005) and Item 4 (Preparation and filing of an uncontested motion, including materials and responses thereto - January 5, 2006). In my review of the Court file and materials, it is my opinion that these motions were actually contested by the Applicant. Therefore, the Respondent could be claiming a minimum of 3 units and a maximum of 7 units under Column III, Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules for this assessable service as Item 5 (Preparation and filing of a contested motion, including materials and responses thereto). It should be noted that, on occasion, I have corrected inadvertent addition errors contained within respective Bills of Costs in a small number of my past decisions. However, as I stated above in paragraph [5], I cannot be an advocate for either party. Since the Respondent submits this assessable service as an uncontested motion, I will allow the 2 units and 2 units respectively for this assessable service as an uncontested motion for a total of 4 units ($480.00).
[7] This assessment of the Bill of Costs has proceeded by way of written submissions. It is my opinion that they were simple in nature and the Respondent did participate in the filing of materials which did assist me in the assessment of the Bill of Costs. I reduce Item 26 (Assessment of costs) to 2 units ($240.00) for the reasons I have outlined in the first two sentences of this paragraph.
[8] The Respondent has claimed 1 unit and 1 unit for its remaining assessable items which include Item 25 (Services after judgment not otherwise specified - client consultation) and its Item 27 (Such other services as may be allowed by the assessment officer or ordered by the Court - filing Notice of Appearance). In addition, the Respondent has claimed $226.72 for disbursements associated with this judicial review. The assessable services of 2 units ($240.00) in total plus $226.72 for disbursements will be allowed in their entirety since, in my opinion, they were reasonable, necessary for this judicial review and have been supported by the Affidavit of Mira Della Rossa, sworn March 8, 2006.
[9] The Bill of Costs in T-1993-04 is assessed and allowed in the amount of $960.00 for assessable services plus associated GST of $67.20 and disbursements of $226.72 which includes applicable GST. A certificate is issued in this Federal Court of Appeal proceeding for $1,253.92 payable by the Applicant to the Respondent.
"Paul Robinson"
Paul G.C. Robinson
Assessment Officer
Toronto, Ontario
June 5, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1993-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANNA CHOW
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -
REASONS BY: PAUL G.C. ROBINSON, Assessment Officer
DATED: June 5, 2006
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content