Date: 20100702
Docket: T-1655-04
Citation: 2010 FC 721
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN
PRIVATE COPYING COLLECTIVE (CPCC)
Applicant
and
FUZION
TECHNOLOGY CORP.
and
1565385
ONTARIO INC.
and
MICKEY YEUNG
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF
COSTS – REASONS
DIANE PERRIER,
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1]
This
is an assessment of applicant’s bill of costs following an order of the Court
rendered on February 2, 2010, dismissing with costs respondent, Mickey Yeung’s,
motion for an order staying the assessment and payment of costs from the order
of Von Finckenstein, J. dated October 25, 2006.
[2]
On
February 24, 2010, applicant filed its bill of costs with the affidavit of
Denise Pope with exhibits DP-1 to DP-3 inclusively requesting that the taxation
proceed in writing. On March 18, 2010, a direction was issued setting
a timetable for the filing of written representations by the parties. Both
parties filed their written representations. I am now ready to assess the bill
of costs.
[3]
Applicant
is claiming in his bill of costs the following assessable services: item 5 –
preparation and filing of a contested motion including materials and responses
thereto (5 units), item 6 – appearance on a motion (2 units x 2 hours) and
item 26 - assessment of costs (4 units).
[4]
Item
6 will be allowed as claimed because it is not contested and considered
reasonable.
[5]
As
for item 5 – preparation of applicant’s motion record in response to
respondent, Mickey Yeung’s, motion, respondent mentions in his written
representations in opposition to applicant’s bill of costs that item 5 should
be awarded the minimum 3 units because the issues raised on the motion were not
complex and did not require the production of extensive response materials. I
found that the 5 units requested by applicant is reasonable for the
circumstances of the case at bar.
[6]
As
for item 26 – taxation of costs, respondent, Mickey Yeung, contests the 4 units
requested by applicant stating that 2 units should be allowed because the bill
of costs is extremely straightforward with the applicant only seeking for 3
assessable services and the disbursements incurred. I do not agree entirely
with the respondent, I think that 3 units should be allowed because applicant’s
counsel prepared a detailed affidavit with written representations in support
of the bill of costs and it appears reasonable in the circumstances.
Applicant’s assessable services will be allowed in the amount of $ 1,560.
[7]
Disbursements
will be allowed in the amount of $ 568.10. Respondent, Mickey Yeung,
contests that applicant has retained counsel from Montreal instead of having
chosen counsel from Toronto. To this I respond that parties are entitled to
be represented by counsel of their choice as per section 11 of the Federal
Courts Act. So, I will allow air travel from Montreal to Toronto not in the
amount of $ 611.17 as requested by applicant but in the amount of $ 400
which I found reasonable and necessary for the case at bar. As for taxis and
meals, I will allow the amount requested by the applicant because I found them
reasonable and necessary and proven by the affidavit of Denise Pope. The copy
charges for the motion record in the amount of $ 24.50 are allowed because
it appears reasonable, proven by affidavit and not contested.
[8]
Respondent,
Mickey Yeung, requests that pursuant to Rule 408 (3) of the Federal Courts
Rules that costs for the assessment be fixed at $ 500 and be made
payable forthwith to Yeung by CPCC. To this, I respond that pursuant to Rule
400 of the Federal Courts Rules, only the Court has the power to award
costs. The assessment officer cannot amend an order of the Court. The officer’s
role is limited to setting the amount of costs when the Court has awarded them
to a party. So, I can not allow respondent, Mickey Yeung’s, request
[9]
Applicant’s
bill of costs is assessed and allowed in the amount of $ 2,128.10. A
certificate of assessment will be issued for this amount.
MONTRÉAL
(QUEBEC)
July 2nd,
2010
“Diane
Perrier”
DIANE PERRIER
ASSESSMENT
OFFICER
Email this Content