Date: 20000622
Docket: T-1520-98
BETWEEN:
TERRENCE LAVALLEE
Applicant
- and -
URBIN LOUISON, JACK STEVENSON,
JENNIFER CYR, GARY L. PELLETIER
and TERRENCE R. PELLETIER
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
FRANCOIS PILON
[1] The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs by Order of the Court dated September 3, 1999. Mr. Daniel Maddigan, the solicitor for the respondents, filed a bill of costs on May 3, 2000 with a request it be assessed via telephone conference. The Registry contacted Mr. Orest Rosowsky, the solicitor for the applicant, prior to issuing a notice of appointment. Counsel indicated he was without instructions from his client with regards to the assessment of costs and he would not be participating.
[2] The assessment took place by telephone conference with Mr. Maddigan on June 21, 2000. Counsel referred to the factors to be considered in allowing costs as provided by Rule 400(3) and the Assessment Officer agreed that they would be considered.
[3] Three specific items were discussed with regards to their applicability. Mr. Maddigan claimed four units for the preparation and filing of an uncontested interlocutory motion (item 4). This is with reference to respondents' motion to strike portions of the affidavit of the applicant which had been filed in support of his application for judicial review. By Order dated October 22, 1998 the Court granted the respondents' motion, but was silent as to the costs of the motion. Mr. Maddigan assumed that this item would be recoverable following the outcome of the final hearing. However, the Rules and the jurisprudence are clear on this issue; the authority to allow costs of an interlocutory motion is in the full discretion of the Court. Costs do not follow the event unless otherwise ordered.
This item will be refused.
[4] Counsel claims seven units for item 15 for the preparation of written arguments. Mr. Maddigan explained he was referring to his memorandum of fact and law filed as part of his application record. However, costs for this item has already been allowed under item 2 (preparation and filing of Respondents' Record and materials). This claim is not allowed.
[5] Mr. Maddigan claims five units for travel time (item 24) to attend the hearing in Winnipeg. Counsel explained that flight connections are poor; it took him nine hours to fly from Regina to Winnipeg, which included long waiting periods. I mentioned that this item is also at the discretion of the Court as specifically provided at item 24 and that I was without authority to allow this fee.
[6] Mr. Maddigan added that parties had requested to be heard in Regina but the Court chose Winnipeg instead. Moreover, counsel pointed out that counsel fee for travel should be allowed because of the very nature of the Federal Court which sets down hearings anywhere across Canada, sometimes obliging parties to travel to larger centres. Counsel may have valuable arguments, but the fact remains that full discretion again lies with the Court.
[7] Items 2, 13, 14 and 26 are allowed as presented. Disbursements are satisfactorily proven and allowed.
[8] The costs of the respondents are assessed and allowed in the amount of $2,340.00 for fees and $548.18 for disbursements. A Certificate of Assessment in the total of $2,898.18 will issue accordingly.
__________________________________
François Pilon
Assessment Officer
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket: T-1520-98
TERRENCE LAVALLEE
Applicant
- and -
URBIN LOUISON, JACK STEVENSON,
JENNIFER CYR, GARY L. PELLETIER
and TERRENCE R. PELLETIER
Respondents
| PLACE AND DATE OF ASSESSMENT: Teleconference from Halifax, Nova Scotia |
June 21, 2000
| REASONS BY: F. Pilon, Assessment Officer |
| DATE OF REASONS: June 22, 2000 |
APPEARANCES:
Daniel J. Maddigan for the Respondents
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Rosowsky, Campbell & Seidle
Kamsack, Saskatchewan for the Applicant
Griffin, Toews, Maddigan, Brabant
Regina, Saskatchewan for the Respondents
Email this Content