Date: 20081119
Docket: T-1495-06
Citation:
2008 FC 1272
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH KLIGMAN
Plaintiff
and
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Defendant
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS-
REASONS
W. DOYLE
Assessment
Officer
[1] The Plaintiff filed a notice of motion,
pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, for an
Order granting an extension of the ninety (90) days delay in order to file an
Action pursuant to subsection 30(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
[2]
After having read the motion filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s materials
filed in opposition, the Court (Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer) Ordered the
motion “dismissed with costs“.
[3] The
Defendant filed a Bill of Costs on June 16, 2008 in the Québec City
office of the Federal Court attached to a sworn affidavit of Anne-Marie
Renélinque in support of the disbursements sought. It was determined that this
assessment of costs was appropriate for written representations without the
necessity of the appearance of the parties. A letter was issued setting a
timetable for any reply and subsequent rebuttal materials.
[4] The
Court received correspondence on September 2, 2008 from the solicitor who had
originally been retained by the Plaintiff and who had filed the notice of
motion on behalf of the Plaintiff. In the correspondence, which was also sent
to the solicitor for the Defendant, the Solicitor stated;
“… please note that the undersigned attorney no longer
represents the interests of Mr. Joseph Kligman and this since the date
of judgment rendered by Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer on September 27, 2006.
You may communicate with Mr. Kilgman directly any documents you deem
appropriate and/ or necessary. As I understand matters, he is
domiciled and residing in Israel at the
same address found in the procedures….”
[5] Subsequently
the Court received a letter from the Defendant on October 31, 2008 in which the
Defendant stated “... we respectfully request that the assessment be done
accordingly to the Bill of cost as submitted by the Defendant.”
[6] I
reviewed Federal Courts Rules in regard to address for service.
I refer here to, and have reproduced, both Federal Courts Rule
2 and Rule 66(2) (c):
INTERPRETATION
Definitions
2. The following definitions apply in these Rules.
…
"address
for service" means
(a) in respect of a party who has no solicitor of
record,
(i) the address shown on the last document filed by the
party that indicates an address in Canada,
or
(ii) where the party is the Crown or the Attorney General of
Canada, the office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada in Ottawa; and
(b) in
respect of a party who has a solicitor of record, the address of the solicitor
of record shown on the last filed document that indicates an address. ( adresse aux fins de
signification )
…
Heading
66. (1) …
(a) …; and
(b) .
Content of document
(2) A document prepared for use in a
proceeding shall contain
(a)…;
(b) …; and
(c)
the name, address, telephone number and fax number of the solicitor filing the
document or, where a party is not represented by a solicitor, the party's name,
an address for service in Canada, a telephone number and any fax
number.
[7] Based
on the information provided in paragraph [5] and [6] I am prepared to proceed
with the assessment. In the Bill of Costs the Defendant requested the following
assessable services; A. originating documents and other pleadings - Item 2 - preparation
and filing of reply (7 units) and G. miscellaneous - item 25 – services after
judgment not otherwise specified (1 unit) and item 26 - assessment of costs (6
units).
[8] In
reference to the request for assessable services - item 2, I believe the
Defendant should have used item 5 – preparation and filing of a contested
motion, including materials and responses thereto. In that regard, in this
particular file, I believe that five units are reasonable and five units are
allowed. Item 25 – services after judgment not otherwise specified is
uncontested and allowed at one unit as claimed. In regard to item 26 –
assessment of costs, it is noted that the assessment was done in writing and no
documents were filed in opposition. In this case, given these circumstances,
item 26 is reduced to two - the minimum number of units available for item 26
in column three of Federal Courts Rules Tariff B. The total assessable
services will therefore be reduced from a claimed $1, 680.00 to an allowed $960.00
[9] The
remaining fees and disbursements entries are itemized with exhibits attached to
the sworn affidavit of Anne-Marie Renélique and are deemed reasonable and have
not been challenged. These items are allowed as claimed at $260.36.
[10] The
Defendant’s Bill of Costs presented at $1,940.36 is accordingly assessed and
allowed in the amount of $ 1,220.36. A certificate is now issued in the Federal
Court proceeding for $1,220.36.
_” Willa Doyle” __
Assessment
Officer
Fredericton, New Brunswick
November 19, 2008
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1495-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOSEPH
KILGMAN - and-
MINISTER
OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN
WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -
REASONS BY: Willa Doyle, Assessment Officer
DATED: November
19, 2008
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Jacques Mimar FOR
THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Jacques Mimar FOR
THE DEFENDANT
Justice Canada
Montréal, QU
Email this Content