Date: 20020822
Docket: T-458-99
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 898
BETWEEN:
JOHN ROBERT MORIN,
RICHARD WILLIAM MORIN,
FLORENCE MORIN,
ISABELLE MORIN, JOHN A. MORIN,
AND THERESA MORIN
Appellants
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN RIGHT OF CANADA,
THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AND
NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA, and
THE ENOCH CREE NATION #440
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] The Court allowed this appeal, with costs, addressing a decision concerning the estate of the father of the Appellants. I issued a timetable for disposition of the Appellants' bill of costs in writing.
[2] The Appellants argued that the mid-range values for counsel fees in Tariff B are recoverable. The Appellants argued that Teledyne Industries Inc. v. Lido Industrial Products Ltd. (1981) 56 C.P.R. (2d) 93 (Fed. T.D.) holds that affidavit evidence that disbursements were incurred and paid may replace receipts from payees. The Appellants relied upon M.N.R. v. Bethlehem Corp. (1976) 71 D.L.R. (3d) 313 (Fed. C.A.) to ask for costs of the assessment and interest payable from the date of judgment. The Appellants asked for an interest rate of 5%. The Respondents did not file submissions.
Assessment
[3] The Federal Court Rules, 1998, do not contemplate a litigant, having notice of an assessment of costs and not participating, benefiting by an assessment officer stepping away from a position of neutrality to act as the litigant's advocate in challenging given items in a bill of costs. However, the assessment officer cannot certify unlawful items, i.e. those outside the authority of the judgment and the tariff. I examined each item claimed in the bill of coss and the supporting material within those parameters. Although there might have been difficulty with the choice of one fee item, the total amount claimed for fees is arguable, and reasonable, within the limits of the tariff. I add 2 units under item 26 for the assessment process. The bill of costs of the Appellants, presented at $5,334.51, is assessed and allowed at $5,554.51. Per Wilson v. Canada 2000 D.T.C. 6641, I will apply the Federal Court Act, s. 37(1), the Judgment Interest Act, R.S.A. 2001, c. J-1 and the Judgment Interest Regulation, A.R. 364/84, to post-judgment interest. The requested rate of interest of 5% is within the limits of their provisions and I allow it from the date of judgment: December 20, 2001.
(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"
Assessment Officer
Vancouver, B.C.
August 22, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-458-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOHN ROBERT MORIN et al.
Appellants
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN et al.
Respondents
ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS BY: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: August 22, 2002
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Parlee McLaws for Appellants
Edmonton, AB
Morris Rosenberg for Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada Her Majesty the Queen in Right
Ottawa, ON of Canada and the Minister of
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Biamonre Cairo and Shortreed for Respondent
Edmonton, AB The Enoch Cree Nation #440
Email this Content