Date: 20070924
Docket: T-1875-06
Citation 2007 FC 950
BETWEEN:
AYR
MOTOR EXPRESS INC.
Applicant
and
MERRILL
MCKAY
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS-
REASONS
W. DOYLE
Assessment
Officer
[1]
The Applicant,
Ayr Motor Express Inc., made an application for judicial review seeking to have
the September 28, 2006 Adjudication of a Complaint of Unjust Dismissal under
Division XIV, Part III of the Canada Labour Code by Adjudicator,
Christine A. Fagan,Q.C. quashed with costs to the Applicant. The matter was
heard and Mr. Justice Barnes issued a May 17, 2007 Reasons for Judgment and
Judgment. The Judgement reads:
“…this Court adjudges that this application for
judicial review is dismissed with costs payable to the respondent under Column
IV”.
[2]
On August
13, 2007 the respondent filed their Bill of Costs with a supporting affidavit
requesting the assessment be done in writing without personal appearance.
[3]
On August
14, 2007 I issued a timetable for reply and rebuttal materials. To date the plaintiff
has not filed a written reply. I am now prepared to assess the costs.
[4]
I
reviewed the file, the court database abstracts and the Bill of Costs in these
proceedings. The Bill of Costs was presented claiming allowable fees under
items 2, 4, 13, 14, 25, 26 and 27 with what appear to be real time represented
in number of hours and percentages of hours in the column typically reserved
for numbers of units. Additionally, under column for the total claimed, the
amount appears to have been calculated by taking these measurements of time and
multiplying by a unit value of $100.
[5]
Prior
to beginning the assessment of the Bill of Costs, I draw counsel’s attention to
the joint memoranda dated April 26, 2007 in which the Chief Justice of the
Federal Court of Appeal and the Chief Justice of the Federal Court announced
that the unit value for counsel fees in relation to assessable services
pursuant to Tariff B would be 120. The memoranda setting the unit value
annually can be found on the courts’ websites: www.fca-caf.gc.ca (Federal Court of
Appeal) and www.fct-cf.gc.ca (Federal
Court).
[6]
Since the unit value
of the tariff effective April 1, 2007 was established at 120, the amounts in the
Bill of Costs will be adjusted accordingly from 100 per unit to 120 per unit.
[7]
Turning
now to the items claimed under assessable services counsel has requested the
following: item 2 – preparation and filing of respondent’s record for judicial
review and related materials including, but not limited to: legal research,
meeting with client, and preparing memorandum of fact and law and record for judicial
review (9 units), item 4 – preparation and filing of uncontested motion for
extension of time within which to file respondent’s record for judicial review (0.8
units), item 13 – counsel fee: preparation for hearing, including
correspondence, legal research and other services not otherwise particularized
in this tariff (1.9 units), item14 – counsel fee: to first counsel, per hour in
Court (2.3 units), item 25 – services after judgment not otherwise specified:
meeting and following up with client (1 unit), item 26 – assessment of costs (4.3
units), item 27 – consultations with client (2.3 units) for a total of 21.6
units.
[8]
The
Court directed costs payable to the respondent under column IV. I will now
present the allowable range under Column IV of Tariff B of the Federal
Courts Rules for each claimed assessable service followed by a brief
explanation of my reasoning in regard to the units I allowed for the items claimed
in this Bill of Costs.
[9]
The
allowable range for item 2 in Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules under
column IV is five to nine; since this matter appears straightforward I will
allow five units as opposed the requested nine. The allowable range for item 4
is two to five, however, here upon review of the file there does not appear to
be have been any motion filed with the court, the units for item 4 are therefore
reduced to zero. The allowable range for item 13 is three to nine and for the
same reasoning stated in item 2, I will allow the units found at the lower end
of column IV, three units will be allowed. The allowable range for item 14 is two
to four and here upon review, I note in the abstract of hearing the court
registrar has recorded that the hearing began at 9:30am and concluded at
10:50am which is the equivalent of approximately 1.5h (1.5x 2 units = 3)
therefore, three units will be allowed for this item. The allowable number
of units for item 25 is one unit, item 25 was claimed at one unit and will be
allowed as claimed. The allowable range for item 26 is three to seven - since
the assessment was done in writing and was not contested, three units will be
allowed. Item 27 has an allowable range of one to four - however, respectfully, I believe item 27 is meant to
indemnify counsel for extraordinary items not covered elsewhere in the Tariff,
therefore zero units will be allowed for item 27.
[10]
In summary, for the reasons
provided in the preceding paragraph, the 21.6 units claimed for assessable
service has been reduced to 15 units.
[11]
Based on the foregoing, the
total assessable service amount will be reduced from the requested $2,160.00 to
an allowed total assessable service amount of $1,800.00.
[12]
Disbursements, being established
by the affidavit of Geraldine Catherine Noiles, are awarded in the amount of
$99.67.
[13]
The Bill of Costs presented at $2,259.67
is accordingly assessed and allowed in the amount of $1,899.97. A certificate
is issued in the Federal Court proceeding for $1,899.97.
“Willa Doyle”
Assessment
Officer
Fredericton, New Brunswick
September 24, 2007
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1875-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: AYR MOTOR
EXPRESS INC. – and-
MERRILL
MCKAY
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN
WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -
REASONS BY: Willa Doyle, Assessment Officer
DATED: September
24, 2007
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Christopher R. Lavigne FOR
THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Hazen F. Calabrese Law FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Fredericton, NB
Email this Content