Docket: T-2244-06
Citation: 2011 FC 421
BETWEEN:
|
|
GABRIEL SAVARD
|
|
|
|
Plaintiff
|
| and
|
|
| CANADA POST CORPORATION
|
|
|
|
Defendant
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT OFFICER JOHANNE PARENT
[1]On May 27, 2008, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review of a decision rendered on April 20, 2006, by Canada Post Corporation, with expenses. On December 29, 2010, the Defendant presented its bill of costs to the Court. Instructions were then issued informing the parties that the assessment of costs would proceed in writing and of the deadlines set for filing submissions.
[2]In support of its bill of costs, the Defendant served and produced the evidence justifying the outlays. No other submission by the parties was received at the Court registry, not even a request for a time extension.
[3]Therefore, I will proceed with assessing the bill of costs, taking into consideration the observations of my colleague in Dahl v. Canada, 2007 FC 192 (OT) at paragraph 2:
Effectively, the absence of any relevant representations by the Plaintiff, which could assist me in identifying issues and making a decision, leaves the bill of costs unopposed. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Courts
Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by an assessment officer stepping away from a position of neutrality to act as the litigant's advocate in challenging given items in a bill of costs. However, the assessment officer cannot certify unlawful items, i.e. those outside the authority of the judgement and the Tariff.
[4]In keeping with the foregoing and given the services claimed under Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules, the units charged for preparation and filing of the Defendant’s case (item 2), for preparation of the hearing (item 13a), for attendance in Court (item 14a) and for assessment of costs (item 26) are awarded as charged.
[5]The Defendant submitted no details or submissions in support of its claim under item 4 for preparation and filing of an uncontested motion. A detailed review of the Court record did not turn up any motion or order able to justify that charge. As rule 400(1) of the Federal Courts Rules states, only the Court “shall have full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs and the determination of by whom they are to be paid.” Therefore, the assessment officer does not have the necessary jurisdiction enabling him/her to award expenses. Being unable to find any Court decision, other than the final decision, awarding expenses and based on rule 400(1) and on the decision in Janssen-Ortho Inc. v Novopharm Ltd 2006 FC 1333, in which it was determined that “any order made before the court proceedings that does not deal with the issue of expenses means that no expenses were awarded to either party,” the units claimed under item 4 will not be awarded.
[6]The units claimed under item 24 for travel by counsel cannot be awarded. Item 24 of Tariff B specifically states that these costs are at the discretion of the Court. Given that an assessment officer is not considered a member of the Court and that the Court, in its decision, makes no mention of travel expenses, the units claimed will not be awarded.
“Johanne Parent”
Toronto, Ontario
April 5, 2011
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2244-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: GABRIEL SAVARD v. CANADA POST COPORATION
ASSESSMENT OF EXPENSES ON RECORD WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT BY: THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER
JOHANNE PARENT
DATE OF THE ASSESSEMENT: April 5, 2011
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
| No written submissions
|
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
|
| Mr. Richard Pageau
|
FOR THE DEFENDANT
|
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells
Quebec City, Quebec
|
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
|
| Germain Pageau Benoît
Montreal, Quebec
|
FOR THE DEFENDANT
|
Email this Content