Date: 20021018
Docket: T-804-94
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1092
BETWEEN:
SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE D'EXPORTATION DE BISONS INC.
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE CANADA
THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF JUSTICE
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendants
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
FRANÇOIS PILON
Assessment Officer
[1] This action was dismissed with costs on April 20, 2000, following a four-day hearing. On August 23, 2002, Dominique Guimond, counsel for the Department of Justice, filed the appellants' bill of costs and asked that it be assessed without a personal appearance by the parties. On September 20, 2002, Luc Huppé, counsel for the respondent, filed his written submissions against the bill of costs.
[2] Mr. Huppé asked that the bill of costs be dismissed for the following three reasons:
(a) the defendants' bill was not consistent with the Tariff, since it indicated no breakdown for the monies claimed and provided no documentation or explanation in support of the claim;
(b) the affidavit accompanying the bill was signed by an articling student, who did not take any part in the case and who therefore had no adequate personal knowledge of the content of the claim; and
(c) the total amount claimed was in no way reasonable, being contrary to the clearly established rule in the Tariff.
[3] To begin with, Mr. Guimond did not have to give further particulars of the amounts claimed in items 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13(a) and (b) and 14(a) of Tariff B, as those items reflected each stage of the procedure in the case, resulting in recovery of costs under assessable services. A party who has his costs assessed is entitled to do this without providing further particulars. At the assessment the assessment officer decides on the legality of each item claimed, depending on whether it is consistent with the provisions of Tariffs A and B. At the same time, I agree with Mr. Huppé's argument that documentation may be required in the event that a party has to justify certain costs. We will return to this below.
[4] As to the second objection, it seems quite acceptable to me for an articling student to become familiar with a case at the time the bill of costs is prepared. In my opinion, it will be sufficient to have a good knowledge of all aspects of Tariff B as they apply to the various stages of the proceeding in a particular case. The fact that an articling student has not earlier participated in the hearing of the case does not in any way diminish the validity of his or her affidavit in support of the bill of costs.
[5] Finally, Mr. Huppé argued that the total amount claimed was not reasonable and contravened the clearly established rule in the Tariff. I do not agree with this allegation, because it is general in scope. With respect, I note that counsel was free to submit arguments in opposition to specific items in the bill of costs if he objected to the number of units requested by the defendants, with reference to the factors listed in paragraph 3 of Rule 400. However, that was not the case. In the circumstances, I will not reduce the amount sought for the assessable services, since each item is consistent with column III of Tariff B.
[6] As to item 26, for assessment of costs, I will reduce this claim from 6 to 3 units, since the assessment took place without a personal appearance by counsel.
[7] Mr. Guimond claimed 3 units following the defendants' representations on the status review notice and objection to the motion for an extension of time, in accordance with item 27 of the tariff. That item is disallowed as the Court said nothing about costs as a result of that event.
Disbursements
[8] The defendant submitted the sum of $689.75 for photocopies at $0.25 a page. Here I will rule in favour of Mr. Huppé, who had earlier objected to the absence of documentation. I do not doubt that these photocopies were made and that they were probably necessary for the conduct of
the action: the documents included in the Court record appear to establish this. However, what we need is evidence of the actual cost of this disbursement. The affidavit in support of the bill of
costs is defective in this regard: it does not mention the photocopying costs. Further, we do not know whether these were incurred in counsel's office or at the premises of an independent supplier. I wondered how this expense was incurred and paid. The evidence does not provide an answer. In these circumstances, I must disallow this claim.
[9] The sum of $61.42 is allowed for costs of service, since those costs are supported by vouchers attached to the affidavit. In conclusion, the defendants' costs are assessed and allowed in the amount of $12,106.42.
|
|
"François Pilon"
Assessment Officer
|
Halifax, Nova Scotia
October 18, 2002
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: T-804-94
BETWEEN: SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE D'EXPORTATION DE BISONS INC.
Plaintiff
-and-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ET AL.
Defendants
ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
REASONS BY: François Pilon, Assessment Officer
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF REASONS: October 21, 2002
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
de Grandpré, Chaurette, Lévesque for the plaintiff
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the defendants
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content