Date: 20130418
Docket: T-427-09
Citation: 2013 FC 517
Ottawa, Ontario, April 18, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice
Rennie
BETWEEN:
|
|
COUNCIL OF NATURAL MEDICINE COLLEGE OF CANADA
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
COLLEGE OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE PRACTITIONERS AND
ACUPUNCTURISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
ORDER
WHEREAS
on March 19, 2013 the application for judicial review by the Council of
Natural Medicine College of Canada (the Council) was dismissed;
AND
UPON reviewing the Council’s submissions on costs, being a letter dated
April 5, 2013 (received April 10, 2013), and the College’s submissions on
costs, received April 9, 2013, the Court endorses the record as follows:
Endorsement
Costs
are awarded to the College and fixed at $90,000.00. The Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to Rule 400(1) and 400(4) to award costs in a lump-sum, in lieu of
costs which would be awarded under the Tariff: Microsoft Corporation v
9038-3746 Quebec Inc., 2007 FC 659, para 27. In my view, this amount is
reasonable, if not conservative, given the complexity of the proceedings and
the nature of the issues at stake.
There
are a number of criteria which warrant an award beyond the usual Tariff
schedule. These include:
(i)
The College was successful on all issues which
were varied.
(ii)
The College made a reasonable offer of settlement
which was not withdrawn.
(iii)
The issues were factually complex. The
Council’s evidence was in excess of 1,700 pages, and that of the College, 1,200
pages. Cross-examinations were lengthy but focussed and necessary, and resulted
in relevant admissions.
(iv)
There was nothing in the conduct of the
successful respondent which would suggest that it should be denied costs beyond
the Tariff amount. The hearing was originally scheduled for four days, but was
completed in three days; in part, due to a compendium filed by the respondent
which facilitated the hearing.
(v)
The division of powers questions were complex,
as they involved the interplay of the doctrines of inter-jurisdictional
immunity, the trade and commerce power and related doctrines of interpretation:
Abdelrazik v Canada (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada),
2009 FC 816, paras 21-22.
(vi)
The issues raided by the proceedings were
important, as reflected by the intervention and participation of the Attorney
General of British Columbia.
(vii)
The Attorney General of Canada did not intervene
to assist in the defence of federal legislation, leaving the respondent the
burden of defending legislative scheme.
(viii)
One of the constitutional arguments advanced by
the Council was without merit, the issue having been determined by the Supreme
Court of Canada.
(ix)
There is evidence before me as to the solicitor
and client fees and the amount awarded is not a proxy for an award on a
solicitor-client basis. The amount fixed is approximately 50% of the costs
that would be awarded on a full-indemnity basis.
(x)
Where possible, costs should be awarded on a
lump sum basis, as it saves the time and expense associated with taxation. The
evidence tendered via the Affidavit of Nana Umbach, sworn April 8, 2012,
establishes the costs incurred and was not challenged by the applicant. In
sum, there is sufficient evidentiary foundation for the award.
(xi)
The applicant raises no compelling argument to
the contrary, other than to plead inability to pay.
THIS
COURT ORDERS that costs, fixed in the amount of $90,000.00, are awarded in
favour of the respondent College.
"Donald J. Rennie"