Docket: A-77-11
(T-1482-10)
Citation: 2012 FC 85
Ottawa, Ontario,
January 23, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Scott
BETWEEN:
|
|
MOHAMMED
TIBILLA
|
|
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
|
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion by Mohammed Tibilla, the Appellant, for
a review under Rule 414 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, of the
assessment of costs prepared by Ms. Johanne Parent, Assessment Officer, dated
December 12, 2011.
[2] The Appellant filed an appeal before the Federal Court of
Appeal of Justice Beaudry’s decision dated February 11, 2011, dismissing his
application for judicial review.
[3] On March 4, 2011, the Appellant filed three separate
motions requesting:
(a)
leave to amend his notice of appeal to include
the “Reply to the final level grievance issued by Deputy Commissioner Madam
Cheryl Fraser”;
(b)
the Court determine the contents of the appeal
book; and
(c)
leave to file new evidence.
[4] On April 27, 2011, Justice Layden-Stevenson of the Federal
Court of Appeal ordered that:
(a)
the motion for leave to amend the notice of
appeal be dismissed with costs;
(b)
the contents of the appeal book will be as set
out in the Respondent’s motion to determine the contents of the appeal book.
(c)
the request to introduce new “evidence” be
dismissed; and
(d)
the Respondent be awarded costs on these motions
notwithstanding the final outcome of the appeal.
[5] Directions were issued on June 2, 2011, informing the
parties that the assessment of costs would proceed in writing.
[6] On December 12, 2011, Johanne Parent, Assessment Officer,
allowed the Respondent’s Bill of Costs for a total amount of $1950.00. In light
of the parties’ submissions, Ms. Parent gave five units for each of the three motions
since they “were not overly complex but required a certain amount of work on
the Respondent’s part” (see Ms. Parent’s decision at para 5).
[7] Considering the Appellant’s Motion Records dated December
23, 2011, and January 13, 2012, in which he submits that:
(a)
costs by the Respondent were grossly exaggerated
bearing in mind the experience of Respondent’s counsel and the nature of the
motions;
(b)
reasons given by the Assessment Officer were
erroneous and her assessment was not specific to the complexities of the
materials submitted;
(c)
the amounts awarded in favour of the Respondent
were unreasonable given that no complex research materials were involved and the
representations were made in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts
Rules;
(d)
Rules 409 and 400 were completely ignored by the
Assessment Officer; and
(e)
the Assessment Officer erred in rewarding the
Respondent for his sharp practice and inappropriate behaviour, by allowing
costs on the basis of five, five and seven units.
[8] Considering the Respondent’s Motion Record dated January
5, 2012, in which he submits that:
(a)
in Bellemare v Canada (Attorney
General), 2004 FCA 231, [2004] FCJ No 1048, the Court reiterated that the
discretion of an assessment officer shall not be interfered with by the Court
unless there is an error in principle, or unless the amounts allowed are so
inappropriate or unreasonable as to suggest that an error in principle must
have been the cause;
(b)
in the present case, no error in principle was
committed by the Assessment Officer; and
(c)
the costs awarded were reasonable and Ms. Parent
appropriately exercised her discretion.
[9] The Court finds that the Assessment Officer did not err
in its assessment of costs. Under Rules 405 and 407 of the Federal Courts
Rules, the Assessment Officer had no choice but to apply column III of Tariff
B table. She correctly determined that motions under Item 5 were not complex
but needed a reasonable amount of time to prepare in order for the Respondent
to make reasonable representations.
[10] Furthermore, the wording of Rule 409 does not create an
obligation on the Officer’s part to consider the factors referred to in
subsection 400(3). However, Ms. Parent did adequately consider Rule 400(3)
paragraphs (c) and (g) in her assessment of costs.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that
1.
The Appellant’s motion is dismissed; and
2.
The Assessment Officer’s order stands.
The
whole with costs against Appellant.
"André F.J. Scott"
Email this Content