Date: 20071123
Docket: T-1003-05
Citation:
2007 FC 1228
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN
TIRE CORPORATION LIMITED
Applicant
and
ACCESSOIRES
D'AUTO NORDIQUES INC.
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF
COSTS – REASONS
DIANE
PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1]
The
Applicant, Canadian Tire Corporation Limited made an application by way of a statutory
appeal under section 56 of the Trade-marks Act, R.S.C., c. T-13 for an
order setting aside a decision rendered by the Opposition Board for the
Registrar of Trade-marks on April 12, 2005, refusing Canadian Trade mark
application number 860,710 seeking registration of the trade-mark NORDIC &
Snowflake Design (the “proposed trade-mark”). On November 27, 2006, Mr. Justice
Blais granted the appeal and referred the matter back to the Registrar of Trade-marks.
[2]
On
January 12, 2007, Mr. Justice Blais granted the following as to costs :
“1. The applicant is
awarded its costs in accordance with Column III of Tariff B. 2. The matter
is referred to an assessment officer for the determination of a specific award
of costs, that should be made pursuant to the particular directions articulated
in paragraph 18, specifically: a) The applicant is entitled to double
party-to-party costs for services after January 31, 2006 as per Rule 407 ; b)
No costs to be awarded for non-expert affidavit evidence c)Travel expenses for
applicant’s counsel should be included in the award for costs;
d) No costs to be
awarded for bilingual articling student ; e) Costs for preparation of written
arguments can be included in the calculation, as per item15 of the Tariff B;
and f) The applicant will be entitled to only half of the disbursements related
to expert evidence provided by Mr. Yves Simard and Dr. Ruth Corbin.”
[3]
On
March 13, 2007 the Applicant filed its Bill of Costs requesting the assessment
be done without personal appearance of the parties. Each party filed their
representations. I am now ready to proceed with the assessment of costs based
on the documentation on file.
[4] Counsel fees are allowed in
the amount of $12,185.76 ($11,496. + GST ($689.76). This figure is based on my
reasoning set out in the following itemized paragraphs:
Item 1: Preparation and filing of Notice
of Application is allowed as requested at 7 units. Item 1: Preparation and
filing of Application record is allowed as requested at 7 units. Although the January
12, 2007 Order of Mr. Justice Blais directed at paragraph 18 that no disbursements
are allowed to cover non expert evidence, this item 1 is granted as an assessable
service and not as a disbursement.
Item 4 : Preparation of an unopposed motion
in writing pursuant to Rules 8 and 369, dated September 14, 2005 seeking an
order for an extension of time to cross-examine Denis Bérubé on his affidavit
cannot be allowed since the September 22, 2005 Order of Prothonotary
Lafrenière is silent as to costs. Likewise, for item 4 for the preparation of
an unopposed motion in writing pursuant to Rules 8 and 369, seeking an order
extending the time period for filing the Application Record since the November
10, 2005 Order of Prothonotary Tabib is silent as to costs.
Item 5 : Preparation of a motion pursuant
to Rules 8, 51, 56 and 312, seeking an order to amend paragraph 1 and to set
aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Order of Prothonotary Lafrenière dated
February 13, 2006 is allowed as requested at 7 units.
Item 6: Appearance at Applicant’s motion on
March 13, 2006 in Toronto seeking to amend the Order of Prothonotary
Lafrenière is allowed at .5 hour based on my review of the abstract of hearing
which showed the duration as being 2:00 to 2:30.
Item 4: Preparation of a motion in writing
on consent, pursuant to Rule 369, granting leave to the Applicant to file an
additional Supplementary Record is allowed at 7 units as requested.
Item 8: Preparation for cross-examination
of Denis Bérubé is allowed at 5 units as requested.
Item 11: Paid Quebec agent’s fees
to attend on cross-examination of Denis Bérubé on October 7, 2005 is allowed at
6 hrs x 3 units per hour as requested.
Item 13 (a): Preparation for hearing is
allowed at 5 units as requested.
.
Item 13(b) : Preparation for hearing per
day after first day is allowed at .6 hours x 3 units based on the abstract of
hearing showing that the hearing started at 9:30 and concluded at 12:20.
Item 14 (a): Counsel fee to first counsel
per hour in Court is allowed as requested at 3 units x 7.5 hours.
Item 15: Preparation of written argument is
allowed at 7 units as requested.
Item 24: Travel by counsel to attend a hearing
in Ottawa,
Ontario, on October
22 and 24, 2006, is allowed at 5 units as requested.
Item 25: Services after judgement is
allowed 1 unit as requested.
Item 26: Assessment of costs is allowed at 4
units as opposed to the requested 6 units. I consider this reasonable noting
that the assessment was done without the necessity of personal appearance.
[4] It
is noted that the Applicant claimed double the fees as per the Order of Mr.
Justice Blais rendered on January 12, 2007 for the services assessable after
January 31, 2006 which includes items 13 (a), 13 (b), 14, 15, 24, 25 and 26.
In view of the above therefore fees are allowed in the amount of $5,556.00.
[5] Disbursements corrected at $43,498.18
will be allowed in the amount of $42,338.78. Two of the requested disbursements
may not be granted based on the wording of the January 12, 2007 Order of Mr.
Justice Blais in which he stated:
“1. The applicant is
awarded its costs in accordance with Column III of Tariff B. 2. The matter
is referred to an assessment officer for the determination of a specific award
of costs, that should be made pursuant to the particular directions articulated
in paragraph 18, specifically: a) The applicant is entitled to double
party-to-party costs for services after January 31, 2006 as per Rule 407 ; b)
No costs to be awarded for non-expert affidavit evidence c)Travel expenses for
applicant’s counsel should be included in the award for costs;
d) No costs to be
awarded for bilingual articling student ; e) Costs for preparation of written
arguments can be included in the calculation, as per item15 of the Tariff B;
and f) The applicant will be entitled to only half of the disbursements related
to expert evidence provided by Mr. Yves Simard and Dr. Ruth Corbin.”
therefore disbursement listed at D5 will be
reduced to $411.40 (photocopies of the Applicant’s affidavits and also the affidavits
within the Applicant’s record ) and also disbursement listed at D6 will be
reduced to $748.00 (photocopies of the Applicant’s affidavits within the
Applicant’s Record).
[6] The
Applicant’s Bill of costs presented at $63,420.89 is assessed in the amount of
$60,080.54. A certificate of taxation will be issued in this file.
____________________________________
DIANE
PERRIER
ASSESSMENT
OFFICER
QUEBEC
(QUEBEC)
November
23, 2007
Email this Content