Potvin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FC 1101

Date: 20091028

Docket: T-178-09

Citation: 2009 FC 1101

BETWEEN:

MIKE JAMES POTVIN

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Johanne Parent

Assessment Officer

[1]               On July 14, 2009, the Court, dealing with the respondent’s motion to strike the application, dismissed the application with costs to the respondent, if demanded. The respondent’s bill of costs was received on August 26, 2009 and a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the bill of costs was issued on August 28, 2009. Both parties filed written submissions within the prescribed timeframe.  

[2]               The applicant claims in his submissions that this case can be considered as a test case and after considering the factors specified in Rule 400 of the Federal Courts Rules, it can be concluded that the case raised important and complex issues. I have carefully reviewed the decision of Mister Prothonotary Aalto along with counsels’ submissions on costs.  Regardless of whether this matter is a test case or not, after considering the applicant’s representations, I am of the view that the units claimed in the Bill of Costs are reasonable.

[3]               The respondent is allowed the four units claimed under Item 5 for the preparation and filing of a contested motion. Two units are allowed under Item 6 for the appearance on the motion per hour. However, the number of hours claimed has been adjusted to better reflect the actual time in Court for this hearing as is indicated in the Court file.

[4]               Counsel for the applicant further argues the impecuniosity of his client. As stated in Solosky v. Canada [1977] 1 F.C. 663 and many times confirmed:

Furthermore, in deciding whether costs should or should not be awarded against an unsuccessful plaintiff, neither the ability to pay nor the difficulty of collection should be a deciding factor but, on the contrary, the awarding or refusal of costs should be based on the merits of the case. Unless special circumstances exist to justify an order to the contrary, costs should normally follow the event.

The applicant’s argument concerning his economically disadvantageous situation is not a consideration in the assessment of costs in accordance with the above mentioned reference.

[5]               The respondent’s bill of costs is allowed for a total amount of $780.00.

   “Johanne Parent” 

Toronto, Ontario

October 28, 2009

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          T-178-09

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          MIKE JAMES POTVIN v. THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

PLACE OF ASSESSMENT:                                                 TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    JOHANNE PARENT

DATED:                                                                                 OCTOBER 28, 2009

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: