Date: 20010726
Docket: T-1264-99
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 829
BETWEEN:
ABDULLAH N. SHAKER,
SHAKER ASSOCIATES,
CHARLES MICHELS OF SWITZERLAND (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE (MNR)
Defendant
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Gerald Parlee
Assessment Officer
[1] The Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Deputy Minister of National Revenue rendered
on April 15, 1999, justifying the seizure of 19 watches pursuant to S.135 of the Customs Act. The
appeal was dismissed with costs. On May 11, 2001 the Defendant filed a bill of costs with proof
of service on the Plaintiffs, requesting disposition by written submissions.
[2] The Plaintiffs' Reply and Objection
In his reply and objection to the Defendant's bill of costs, Mr. Shaker, representing himself, refers
to the bill as being exaggerated and contradictory. In particular, he mentions items 2, 7, 8, 10
and 11, asserting that the calculation should be 15 hours in total, when the defendant admittedly
was in court, at an hourly rate of $100 for a total of $1,500. Plaintiff also argues that, relative Page 2
to items 13 and 14, based on the time he himself spent on preparation, filing of documents
and attendance, Defendant's claim for these should not exceed 10 hours at $100 for a total of
$1,000.
[3] The Plaintiff also questioned the amount of $1,990.03 submitted for expert witness fees
suggesting that 2 hours at $100 might be a more reasonable fee.
[4] Disbursements totalling $352 were not contested. Plaintiff submitted that total costs, in his
estimation, should therefore be $1,500 + $1,000 + $200 + $352 = $3,052.00.
[5] Defendant's Rebuttal Submissions
Generally, Defendant's rebuttal stated that:
(a) when rendering the order, the Court did not exercise any of the discretionary
powers provided for by Rule 400 of the Federal Court Rules 1998; and therefore, the
assessment officer should proceed in accordance with column III of the table to
Tariff B, Rule 407 of the Federal Court Rules 1998.
(b) pursuant to Rule 420 of the Federal Court Rules 1998, Defendant is entitled to
party-and-party costs to the date of the service of the offer to settle and to double such
costs, excluding disbursements from that date to the date of judgment [Items 13(a), (b)
and 14(a)].
(c) Tariff A paragraph 3(4) provides that in lieu of the amounts to which an expert
witness is entitled, a party may pay the expert witness a greater amount established by
contract for his services in preparing to give evidence and giving evidence at trial.
[6] My Conclusions
It is my view that the Plaintiff may have misconstrued the structure of the tariff since items 2, 7, 8
Page 3
and 10, although a function of calculations under Tariff B paragraph 2(1), are not a function of a
number of hours, but simply of the number of units available in the range for each item. The
Defendant's rebuttal gave particulars to explain or substantiate the items submitted. Since this
matter was neither the simplest nor the most complex of assessments, the low to mid-range
number of units appears acceptable in the circumstances, which I allow. Item 11 is allowed as
presented.
[7] The Plaintiff's submission regarding items 13 and 14 was that an acceptable total would be
10 hours X $100 = $1,000. The Plaintiff may have misconstrued the structure of the Tariff.
Although item 14 is calculated as a function of a number of hours, item 13 is calculated as a
global amount. This submission also discounts the doubling factor authorized by Rule 420 (2)(b):
"Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, where a defendant makes a written offer to settle that
is not revoked, ...(b) if the plaintiff fails to obtain judgment, the defendant shall be entitled to party-and
party costs to the date of the service of the offer and to double such costs, excluding disbursements,
from that date to the date of judgment."
Therefore, I agree with Defendant's submission and allow items 13(a), (b) and 14(a) as submitted.
[8] Item 26 is allowed at 3 units instead of the 4 submitted as this was not a difficult
assessment.
[9] Expert witness fees were questioned by Plaintiff but, as Defendant submitted in
rebuttal, Tariff A paragraph 3(4) provides that a party may pay the expert witness a greater
amount established by contract for his services. An invoice in the amount of $1,990.03
was provided in Defendant's rebuttal. I allow this amount.
[10] Although neither party raised the point, I am bound by the limits of Tariff B and in
particular must apply the unit value as determined each year by the Chief Justice. Since
Page 4
this bill of costs was filed May 11, 2001, it is subject to the 2001 unit rate of $110.
Submitted Assessed
Tariff A Expert Witness $1,990.03 $ 1,990.03
Tariff B $9,625.00 $10,477.00
Disbursements $ 352.00 $ 352.00
$11,967.03 $12,819.03
[11] Defendant's bill of costs presented at $11,967.03 is assessed and allowed at
$12,819.03 for which a certificate will be issued.
"Gerald Parlee"
Gerald Parlee
Assessment Officer
Ottawa, Ontario
July 26, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-1264-99
BETWEEN:
ABDULLAH N. SHAKER,
SHAKER ASSOCIATES,
CHARLES MICHELS OF SWITZERLAND (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE (MNR)
Defendant
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Ottawa, Ontario by Written Submissions
DATE OF ASSESSMENT: July 26, 2001
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT DATED JULY 26, 2001 BY G. PARLEE, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
APPEARANCES:
Mr. A.N. Shaker representing himself
Mr. Louis Sébastien for the Defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ABDULLAH N. SHAKER
Aylmer, Québec for the Plaintiffs
MORRIS ROSENBERG
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
Ottawa, Ontario for the Defendant
Date: 20010726
Docket: T-1264-99
BETWEEN:
ABDULLAH N. SHAKER,
SHAKER ASSOCIATES,
CHARLES MICHELS OF SWITZERLAND (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE (MNR)
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSMENT
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the Bill of Costs of the Defendant, The Minister of National Revenue (MNR), is assessed and allowed in the amount of twelve thousand, eight hundred nineteen dollars and three cents ($12,819.03).
DATED AT OTTAWA, Ontario, this 26th day of July, 2001.
____________________
Gerald Parlee
Assessment Officer
Email this Content