Date: 20011205
Docket: T-1996-99
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1338
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN REM AND IN PERSONAM
Between:
SAMUEL, SON & CO. LTD.
and
MACSTEEL INTERNATIONAL (CANADA) LIMITED
and
ISCOR LTD.
Plaintiffs
and
HELLENIC STAR SHIPPING CO. S.A.
and
CHRISTENSEN CANADIAN AFRICAN LINES
and
WORLD STAR SHIPPING CO. LTD.
and
THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS OF
THE VESSEL "WORLD STAR"
and
THE VESSEL "WORLD STAR"
Defendants
TAXATION OF COSTS - REASONS
RICHARD LARABIE, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1] On August 22, 2001, Ms. Christine Kark, representing the Defendant Christensen Canadian African Lines (CCAL), filed a bill of costs pursuant to an order rendered on June 11, 2001 by the Honourable Mr. Justice Pelletier dismissing the motion appealing the Prothonotary's decision with costs to be assessed.
[2] In a letter dated August 20, 2001, counsel had requested the issuance of an appointment for the assessment of her bill of costs but decided at a later date to request that the assessment be made in writing.
[3] On September 20, 2001, letters were sent to the parties inviting them to file and serve written representations. On November 2, 2001, Plaintiffs' submissions in opposition were filed and Defendant's reply was received and filed on November 15, 2001.
[4] In her bill of costs, counsel for CCAL requested 7 units under item 2, 3 units for 1.5 hours under item 6 and 3 units for 1.5 hours under item 23.
[5] To the request of 7 units for item 2, counsel for the Plaintiffs, in his written submissions, stated that the complexity of the issue of fact and law raised at the hearing did not justify taxation at the highest level of column III. Counsel added further that in his view, the caselaw cited by either party was limited to leading cases for the principles set out therein and submitted that item 2 should be taxed at a median level and suggested 5 units.
[6] Counsel for CCAL replied that this proceeding created a substantial research along with a considerable amount of work and requested the maximum amount of units of the column because column III already represented a median level. Counsel also replied that she did not consider that the debate was limited to leading cases and referred to their written representations which required a considerable amount of time to conduct additional research to prepare argumentation.
[7] First of all, I must state right from the beginning that Mr. Justice Pelletier's order granted costs to be assessed on the motion appealing the decision of the Prothonotary and that I can assess costs dealing with this motion only. Therefore, I cannot consider Ms. Kark's argument in relation to their written representations since they were filed in respect to the notice of Status Review. Furthermore, as for seeking 7 units under item 2, I respectfully submit that they should have been sought under item 5 for "preparation and filing of a contested motion including material and responses thereto". However, since counsel for Plaintiffs did not contest the item itself and only contested the maximum amount of units, I will allow 5 units being in agreement with the arguments he has put forward.
[8] In relation to the Defendant's request of 3 units under item 6 for 1.5 hours for appearance on a motion, Counsel for Plaintiffs submitted that the Court record showed that the hearing before the Honourable Mr. Justice Pelletier lasted 30 minutes and that time spent waiting to be heard is not included in the calculation of hearing time. He referred to the decision in Dewji & Ghecui Consultants Inc. v. A & A Consultants (August 12, 1999), Doc T-1410-95 (Fed. Assess. Off.).
[9] Counsel for CCAL replied that she had unfortunately omitted to specify that the time requested did not only represent the actual time spent in Court but also some time for the preparation of such motion. She also referred to a decision of Assessment Officer Pace in Geddes v. Lamin Tech Corp. (November 5, 1999), Doc T-2810-97 (Fed. Assess. Off.) and submitted that the Assessment Officer held that items 1 through 26 of Tariff B ordinarily cover and should include research time.
[10] I have read the Assessment Officer's decision, particularly at page 3 where he states:
"Research time is a factor which is normally taken up in the fees allowed in respect of each of the services itemized from 1 through 26 in the Tariff".
[11] My understanding of the Assessment Officer's statement is that research time is already included in the fees allowed under items 1 through 26. The 5 units already allowed under item 5 already includes the time spent for research in preparing the response for the contested motion. Therefore, I will allow 2 units under item 6 for the actual time spent in Court of 30 minutes.
[12] Counsel for CCAL stated in paragraph 5 of her submissions in reply, that they are entitled to claim fees under item 23 in relation with their attendance to the Notice of Status Review issued by this Honourable Court. Mr. Fontaine, in his submissions, submitted that Mr. Justice Pelletier did not allow costs for both representations and consequently item 23 should be disallowed. I agree with Plaintiffs' submission and the request of 4.5 units will be refused.
[13] As for disbursements, CCAL's request of $20.00 will be allowed. The bill of costs of Defendant Christensen Canadian African Lines is assessed and allowed at $660.00 for assessable services, since the unit value of this Tariff was increased to $110.00 effective April 1, 2001, and $20.00 for disbursements. A certificate of taxation is issued in the amount of $680.
(Signed) R. LARABIE RICHARD LARABIE
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
MONTREAL, QUEBEC
December 5, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-1996-99
STYLE OF CAUSE:
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN REM AND IN PERSONAM
Between:
SAMUEL, SON & CO. LTD.
and
MACSTEEL INTERNATIONAL (CANADA) LIMITED
and
ISCOR LTD.
Plaintiffs
and
HELLENIC STAR SHIPPING CO. S.A.
and
CHRISTENSEN CANADIAN AFRICAN LINES
and
WORLD STAR SHIPPING CO. LTD.
and
THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS OF
THE VESSEL "WORLD STAR"
and
THE VESSEL "WORLD STAR"
Defendants
ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
PLACE OF TAXATION: Montreal, Quebec
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -
REASONS BY: RICHARD LARABIE, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATE OF REASONS: December 5, 2001
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Sproule, Castonguay, Pollack
Montreal, Quebec for the plaintiffs
Borden, Ladner, Gervais for the defendant
Montreal, Quebec Christensen Canadian African Lines
Email this Content