A-189-96
BETWEEN:
CLIFFORD ROBERT OLSON
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR TAXATION
DAN J. BUELL
TAXING OFFICER:
The Applicant who is an inmate representing himself in this matter filed a Statement of Claim on May 5, 1994 seeking declaratory relief pursuant to subsection 24 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The trial was heard by the Honourable Mr. Justice Heald, D.J., who dismissed the action with costs. Reasons for Judgment were filed.
A Notice of Appeal was filed by the inmate on February 27, 1996 and the appeal was heard via video-conference on April 9, 1997. The Court of Appeal rendered its Judgment and Reasons for Judgment at the hearing dismissing the appeal with costs.
The Crown now presents its Bill of Costs in each division of the Court for taxation in writing on the basis of Written Representations.
In support of the Bill of Costs in the Trial Division counsel for the Crown relies on the Affidavit of Bruce Gibson. The Affidavit of Lionel Fauchoux is also filed as proof of service.
In response to the request for taxation, Mr. Olson tenders two letters dated June 18 and 25, 1997 and a copy of the Reasons for Taxation of Stinson, T.O., in Robert Casden v. Cooper Enterprises Inc.1 Mr. Olson argues that the taxation of the Bills of Costs cannot proceed at this time because he has filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada. It is his position that any taxation must wait until his case is fully resolved.
I wrote the parties on August 11, 1997 inviting further Written Submissions and set out time frames for tendering their responses. The time frame for tendering submissions has expired and no further Written Representations were received. I will first of all address the issue raised by Mr. Olson.
I reviewed the authority of Stinston, T.O., and I am of the view that the taxation of the Bills of Costs can proceed at this time.
The Reasons for Taxation of Stinson, T.O., states in part:
| |
The Taxing Officer should have, in assessing accounts, the benefit of the final (by that I mean that decision not subject to any further appeal) conclusion on the substantive issues generated by the action. |
|
I realize that the application for leave to appeal is still outstanding before the Supreme Court of Canada but it is my view that the substantive issues of the matter before this Court have been resolved. The final judgments of both the Trial Division and the Appeal Division has been rendered and the matter is not subject to any further appeal process in this Court. I also note that at the time
of this taxation a Notice of Appeal has not yet been filed with the Supreme Court of Canada. It is my view that having found that the substantive issues have been decided, the Crown is now entitled to a taxation of its Bills of Costs.
These Reasons for Taxation will therefore apply to the Bill of Costs in both the Trial Division and the Appeal Division.
The Bill of Costs presented in the Trial Division is as follows:
| |
ITEM TAXABLE SERVICE COLUMN III - UNITS |
|
| |
A. Originating Documents and Pleadings |
|
| |
2 Preparation and filing of Statement of |
|
| |
C. Discovery and Examinations |
|
| |
7 Discovery of documents including listing, |
|
| |
affidavit and inspection 5 Units |
|
| |
D. Pre-Trial and Pre-Hearing Procedures |
|
| |
13 (a) Counsel fee - preparation for trial 80 hours |
|
| |
14 (a) Counsel fee - Court Record 7 Hours |
|
| |
15 Preparation and filing of written argument 7 Units |
|
| |
24 Travel to attend hearing 3 Units |
|
| |
26 Taxation of Costs 6 Units |
|
| |
1. Expert Witness $5,776.86 |
|
Exercising the discretion and criteria provided to me under Section 346 (1) of the Federal Court Rules I carefully reviewed the list of items claimed in the Defendant's Bill of Costs. In the absence of any submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff, I find that the Defendant is entitled to each of the items as claimed under Column III with the following adjustments: Item 26 is taxed off. This item in my
view contemplates personal appearance at taxations and is not awarded when taxations are done in writing.
Iitem 13 (a) is adjusted from 80 hours to read 5 units. This service allows only a maximum of 5 units and does not allow for hourly charges. I am further satisfied that the Disbursements claimed for the Expert Witness are also reasonable and are fully supported in the Affidavit of Bruce Gibson submitted along with the Bill of Costs. I am therefore satisfied that the Defendant is entitled to costs in the Trial Division in the amount of $10,576.86. A Certificate of Taxation will issue in this amount.
The Bill of Costs presented in the Appeal Division is as follows:
| |
ITEM TAXABLE SERVICE COLUMN III - UNITS |
|
| |
F. Appeals to the Court of Appeal |
|
| |
19 Memorandum of Fact and Law 7 Units |
|
| |
20 Joint Application for Hearing 1 Unit |
|
| |
22 (a) Counsel fee on hearing of appeal 4 Hours |
|
| |
26 Taxation of Costs 6 Units |
|
The items claimed in this Bill of Costs are allowed as claimed with the exception of item 26 which is taxed off in its entirety. This item contemplates personal appearance at taxations and is not awarded when taxations are done in writing. I am therefore satisfied that the Defendant is entitled to costs in the
Appeal Division in the amount of $2,000.00. A Certificate for Taxation will issue in this amount.
"Dan J. Buell"
Dan J. Buell
Taxing Officer
Calgary, Alberta
September 11, 1997
| |
========================================== |
| |
========================================= |
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: A-189-96
STYLE OF CAUSE:
CLIFFORD ROBERT OLSON
APPLICANT
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN RIGHT OF CANADA
RESPONDENT
TAXATION CONSIDERED WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
REASONS FOR TAXATION OF DAN J. BUELL
Taxing Officer dated September 11, 1997
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Clifford Robert Olson
Ste Anne-des-plaines, Quebec for himself
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
for Canada
Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondent
__________________
1 Casden v. Cooper Enterprises Ltd., [1991], 3 F.C. 281
Email this Content