N-Xpress Canada Inc. v. Norasia Container Lines Canada Ltd., 2002 FCT 580

                                                                 Date: 20020517

                          Docket: T-2143-01

                                       Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 580

Between:

                          N-XPRESS CANADA INC.

                                                                Plaintiff

                                   and

                 NORASIA CONTAINER LINES CANADA LIMITED

                                   and

                    NORASIA CONTAINER LINES LIMITED

                                   and

                  COMPANIA SUDAMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A.

                                   and

                             NORMAND RACICOT

                                   and

                        NL SHIPPING SERVICES S.A.

                                                               Defendants

                      TAXATION OF COSTS - REASONS

FRANCOIS MARTIN, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]                              In December 2001, plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim against defendants. A preliminary motion was later filed by defendants contesting the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada. This motion was never heard since plaintiff filed a Discontinuance of the action on February 19, 2002.

[2]                              Mr. Sylvain Chouinard, counsel for defendants, filed his Bill of Costs on April 3, 2002. Mr. Chouinard requested that the taxation be done in Quebec City, but it was later decided, during a telephone conversation, that the Bill of Costs would be assessed without personal appearance of the parties. Ms. Christine Kark, counsel for the plaintiff, filed her submissions to defendants' Bill of Costs on April 19, 2002. A reply on behalf of defendants was filed on May 9, 2002.

[3]                              As fees, counsel for the defendants is claiming the following items: item 4 (4 units) and item 26 (6 units).

[4]                              As disbursements, the following fees are requested: i) attendance expenses $14.17; ii) communication expenses $196.00; iii) services (special delivery, bailiff, etc) $39.94; iv) photocopies $102.50.

[5]                              Item 4 (preparation and filing of an uncontested motion) is contested. The preparation and filing of the motion, contesting the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, is being proposed by defendants to be taxed at the highest end of column III. According to plaintiff, the complexity of the issues of fact and law that were raised by this motion justifies taxation only at the lowest end of the spectrum and therefore suggests that item 4 be taxed at the lowest level.

[6]                              The position held by defendants is totally in opposition to the one presented by plaintiff. In their reply, defendants refer to Rule 400 of the Federal Court Rules regarding factors to be evaluated in awarding costs: the results of the proceeding, the amount claimed, the complexity of the issues, the amount of work and the conduct of the other party.

[7]                              Considering the amount claimed in this action (US $392,751.61), the number and location of defendants, the complexity of the file (I will refer here to paragraphs 3 to 11 of the Statement of Claim), I consider that the defendants motion contesting the jurisdiction of this Court necessitated a complex preparation. I will allow 4 units for item 4.

[8]                              With respect to item 26 of Tariff B, for purposes of the assessment of costs, defendants are claiming 6 units at the highest end of Column III. According to plaintiff, the proposed Bill of Costs is very simple since the only counsel fees claimed are listed under item 4. Counsel for plaintiff also refers to defendants' Bill of Costs as the simplest Bill of Costs that can be filed in any action.

[9]                              I agree with this last statement regarding the Bill of Costs filed by defendants on April 3. But we have to keep in mind that this Bill of Costs was to be presented and justified during a hearing before the taxing officer. It was later decided that the assessment of costs would be done in writing. Defendants' reply, filed on May 9, gives more details and needed a more elaborate preparation. I will allow 4 units for this item.

[10]                         Any claims for disbursements must be proven to the taxation officer. It was held in the case F-C Research Institute Ltd. v. Canada (1995) 95 D.T.C. 5583 (fed. Taxing Off.) that Tariff B requires that disbursements be supported by acceptable evidence. I am satisfied with the evidence given by the affidavit of Mr. Sylvain Chouinard regarding all costs related to communication expenses, special delivery and photocopies. The only amount that I would deduct is $14.17 relating to attendance expenses. The disbursements costs will be allowed for $338.44.

[11]                         The defendants' costs are assessed and allowed in the amount of $1,218.44. A certificate will be issued for that amount.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          FRANCOIS MARTIN

                                                                                                    ASSESSMENT OFFICER

MONTREAL, QUEBEC

May 17, 2002

                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                 TRIAL DIVISION

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:                                                                               T-2143-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:

                                                           N-XPRESS CANADA INC.

                                                                                                                                                          Plaintiff

                                                                              AND

                                  NORASIA CONTAINER LINES CANADA LIMITED

                                                                                 and

                                            NORASIA CONTAINER LINES LIMITED

                                                                                 and

                                   COMPANIA SUDAMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A.

                                                                                 and

                                                              NORMAND RACICOT

                                                                                 and

                                                       NL SHIPPING SERVICES S.A.

                                                                                                                                                    Defendants

ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

PLACE OF TAXATION:                                                               Montreal, Quebec

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -

REASONS BY:                                                    FRANCOIS MARTIN, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

DATE OF REASONS:                                                                       May 17, 2002

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Borden, Ladner, Gervais

Montreal, Quebec                                                                       for the Plaintiff

Langlois Gaudreau O'Connor

Quebec and Montreal, Quebec                                                  for the Defendants