Date: 20090116
Docket: T-117-02
Citation:
2009 FC 42
BETWEEN:
MURI
PEACE CHILTON
Plaintiff
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Defendant
ASSESSMENT OF
COSTS - REASONS
Mandamin, J.
[1]
Mr.
Chilton, an inmate at Warkworth Correctional Institute, commenced an action
against the Crown in negligence and on other grounds for injury arising in a
workshop accident. At the start of the trial in February 2008, the Defendant
admitted liability in negligence with respect to Mr. Chilton’s physical injury.
Mr. Chilton proceeded on other grounds including the degree of injury suffered.
[2]
I
issued my judgment on September 17, 2008, and awarded Mr. Chilton $2,500 for
his physical injury including pain and suffering and loss of amenity. As Mr.
Chilton was a self-represented litigant I awarded him disbursements only.
[3]
Mr.
Chilton filed a Motion for a Bill of Costs claiming expenses in the following
amounts:
Evidentiary Documents and Court Process
Fees $1637.32
Legal Mailing Costs
315.55
Legal Photocopying costs
130.70
Office Supplies and Essential Chattels
1346.53
Legal and Therapeutic Book Purchases
3809.06
Fees for Interlibrary Loans
50.00
[4]
Mr.
Chilton submits these expenses relate to his legal study, his gathering of information
and evidence, materials, and caselaw.
[5]
The
Crown filed submissions in response to the Motion for the Bill of Costs. It
submitted evidence that it presented a written offer of settlement to Mr.
Chilton on or about six months prior to the commencement of the trial. The
terms of the Offer to Settle were:
a)
The
sum of $2,500.00
b)
Pre-judgment
Interest
c)
Costs,
to be agreed upon or assessed
Mr. Chilton rejected the Offer to Settle.
[6]
The
Crown submitted that the judgment was less favourable than the written Offer
and the Crown should be entitled to double its costs from the date of the Offer
to the date of judgment pursuant to Rule 420(2)(a). That Rule states:
|
420 (2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court and subject to subsection (3),
where a defendant makes a written offer to settle,
(a) if the plaintiff
obtains a judgment less favourable than the terms of the offer to settle, the
plaintiff is entitled to party-and-party costs to the date of service of the
offer and the defendant shall be entitled to costs calculated at double that
rate, but not double disbursements, from that date to the date of judgment;
or
|
420
(2) Sauf ordonnance contraire de la Cour et sous réserve du paragraphe (3),
si le défendeur fait au demandeur une offre écrite de règlement, les dépens
sont alloués de la façon suivante :
a) si le demandeur obtient un jugement moins avantageux
que les conditions de l’offre, il a droit aux dépens partie-partie jusqu’à la
date de signification de l’offre et le défendeur a droit, par la suite et jusqu’à
la date du jugement au double de ces dépens mais non au double des débours;
|
[7]
In
the alternative the Crown submits that I should take into account Mr. Chilton’s
failure to accept the Offer.
[8]
The
Crown submits Mr. Chilton’s Bill of Costs is grossly excessive, largely
irrelevant and entirely out of proportion to the amount recovered in this
action. The Crown submits that a lump sum quantity for disbursements taking
everything into account would be $500.00.
[9]
Given
the Crown’s Offer to Settle was the same as the award in damages at trial and the
Crown’s admission of liability in negligence on the first day of trial, I do
not consider Rule 420(2)(a) to be applicable.
[10]
On
review of Mr. Chilton’s documentation, I find many of the items are unrelated
to the action, being more related to Mr. Chilton’s studies in law and
psychology. I also do not find it possible to separate out matters relating to
Mr. Chilton’s two unsuccessful interlocutory motions, where costs were awarded
to the Crown. Finally, many of the items claimed are in the nature of general
stationary and other supplies which are not relevant to the action.
[11]
Considering
all of the foregoing, I consider the Crown’s proposal of a lump sum award of
$500 to be reasonable.
[12]
Mr.
Chilton requested the Court issue specific directions concerning the payment of
the Bill of Costs. I decline to do so.
[13]
The
Bill of Costs relating to my Judgment of September 17, 2008, is allowed for a
total amount of $500 for disbursements.
“Leonard S. Mandamin”
Ottawa, Ontario
January
16, 2009
Email this Content