Date: 20071005
Docket: T-626-96
Citation: 2007 FC 1033
BETWEEN:
HUSSEIN
FARZAM
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT
OF
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Defendant
ASSESSMENT OF
COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1]
The
Court dismissed with costs this action for damages relative to alleged
negligence in processing the Plaintiff's application for permanent residency. I
issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Defendant's
three bills of costs.
[2]
The
Plaintiff did not file any materials in response to the Defendant's materials.
My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal
Courts Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by having an
assessment officer step away from a neutral position 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
judgment and the tariff. I examined each item claimed in the bills of
costs and the supporting materials within those parameters.
[3]
Certain
items warrant my intervention in view of my expressed parameters above as I
feel that the Defendant cannot establish entitlement thereto notwithstanding
the absence of objections from the Plaintiff. The Defendant claimed counsel fee
item 24 several times for the time of counsel and a paralegal to travel for
various purposes. I disallow each item 24 further to my conclusions in Marshall v. Canada, [2006]
F.C.J. No. 1282 at para. 6, that there must be a visible direction by the Court
to the assessment officer specifically authorizing fees for the time of counsel
in transit. Such a direction is not however necessary to assess the associated
travel disbursements. The Defendant claimed counsel fee item 28 several times
for the services of a paralegal. In Air Canada v. Canada (Minister of
Transport),
[2000] F.C.J. No. 101 (A.O.), I considered the circumstances for allowing item
28. I find that the record does not support any allowances. There were other
items in the bill of costs for the action which might have attracted
disagreement, but the remaining amount claimed is generally arguable as
reasonable within the limits of the award of costs.
[4]
The
Defendant presented a bill of costs for the Plaintiff's unsuccessful motion to
introduce certain evidence at trial, a bill of costs for the Plaintiff's
unsuccessful motion to adduce at trial the evidence of certain witnesses and a
bill of costs for the action. The Defendant claimed a counsel fee item 26
(assessment of costs) for each bill of costs. The practice may be different in
other jurisdictions, but the practice in this Court is to present a single bill
of costs addressing all events, including motions, only after the trial judgment.
The exception is an interlocutory award providing for costs payable forthwith,
in which case a separate bill of costs may be assessed and enforced before the
trial. I allow only a single item 26 in these circumstances at the maximum 6
units ($120.00 per unit). The Defendant's two bills of costs for the motions
are assessed and allowed as presented at $901.55 and $1,171.20 respectively as
I find them generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of their awards
of costs. The Defendant's bill of costs for the action, presented at
$78,808.92, is assessed and allowed at $63,505.32.
"Charles
E. Stinson"
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-626-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: HUSSEIN
FARZAM v. HER MAJESTY
THE
QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
ASSESSMENT
OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES
E. STINSON
DATED: October
5, 2007
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS:
|
n/a
|
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
|
|
Mr. Michael
Roach
|
FOR THE DEFENDANT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
n/a
|
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
|
|
John H. Sims,
Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE DEFENDANT
|
Email this Content