Date: 20090424
Docket: A-532-08
A-534-08
Citation 2009 FCA 129
BETWEEN:
JOHN DETORAKIS
Appellant
and
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR
INTEGRITY CANADA
(also known as THE PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY
COMMISSIONER)
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -
REASONS
W. DOYLE
Assessment
Officer
[1]
On February 9, 2009 the Court (Sharlow, J.A.) issued an
Order and Reasons for Order in each of the two above noted appeal files. The
Order and Reasons for Order dealt with two motions: one - from the appellant seeking an
order requiring the Public Service Integrity Commissioner to produce certain
documents; and a second - from the Public Service Sector Integrity Commissioner
seeking to be removed as respondent. In conclusion on page 3 of her Reasons
for Order Madam Justice Sharlow, J.A. made reference to costs stating: “Costs
[6] The costs of these motions will be costs in the cause”.
[2]
On February 11, 2009 the appellant
wholly discontinued his appeal in A-532-08 and also wholly discontinued his appeal
in file A-534-08. A copy of
these reasons is filed today in Federal Court of Appeal file A-534-08 and
applies there accordingly as did the February 11, 2009 Order and Reasons for
Order of Madam Justice Sharlow, J.A.
[3]
February 12, 2009 the respondent
for the Attorney General of Canada (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed
one bill of costs in each file and asked that the assessments be done in
writing. Accompanying the bills of costs the respondent included a letter
speaking directly to the fact that the bills of costs dealt with an earlier
motion where costs on the motion were awarded in the cause.
[4]
Upon receipt of the bills of
costs, the appellant wrote to the Court stating that he understood that the respondent
had communicated that the respondent would consent to the discontinuance of the
proceedings on a without cost basis. On February 19, 2009 I sent out a
schedule for the filing of written submissions. Both parties responded.
[5]
In his submission the respondent
states he is “seeking only to have what the court has ordered, costs on both
motions”. The respondent does not pursue costs under Rule 402 of the Federal
Courts Rules which deals with costs on discontinuance and reads:
Costs of
discontinuance or abandonment
402. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court
or agreed by the parties, a party against whom an action, application or appeal
has been discontinued or against whom a motion has been abandoned is entitled
to costs forthwith, which may be assessed and the payment of which may be
enforced as if judgment for the amount of the costs had been given in favour of
that party.
[6]
It
is my respectful opinion that, as alluded to in the appellant’s written
submissions, indeed the appellant has erred in his interpretation of the
respondent’s proposal for discontinuance without cost.
[7]
In
referring to the amount sought by the respondent for item 5 of the Federal
Courts Rules Tariff B Column lll (preparation and filing of a contested
motion , including material and responses thereto) the appellant submits that
two units would be the appropriate cost. This is not possible as the permissible
tariff range for this item is three to seven units. The respondent is seeking
seven units. It is my respectful opinion, upon review of the documentation on
the file; five units would be a more appropriate award. Five units will be awarded
for this item on each bill of costs.
[8]
As a result, the total assessable service amount is reduced from
the requested $840.00 to a total assessable service allowed amount of $600.00.
Each bill of costs presented at $840.00
is accordingly assessed and allowed in the amount of $600.00.
[9]
In
his written submissions the appellant makes reference to a second file and
remarks that this file (A-532-08) and the second file (A-534-08) deal with the
same issue, the same facts, the same arguments and the same precedents. Indeed
and, in that there is an Order and Reasons for Order on each of the Federal
Court of Appeal files, the respondent filed one bill of costs for each Order
and Reasons for Order dealing with the two separate appeal files with similar
documentation in regard to the notice of appeals, notices of motions and Orders
and Reasons for Order of the Court.
[10]
A certificate is issued in
Federal Court of Appeal proceeding A-532-08 for $600.00. A copy of these reasons is filed today in
Federal Court of Appeal file A-534-08 and applies there accordingly. Similarly,
a certificate is issued in Federal
Court of Appeal file A-534-08 for $600.00
“Willa Doyle”___
Assessment
Officer
Fredericton, New Brunswick
April 24, 2009
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-532-08
and A-534-08
STYLE OF CAUSE: John
Detorakis v. The Chief Executive Officer of the Public Service Integrity
Canada and The Attorney General of Canada
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN
WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -
REASONS BY: Willa Doyle, Assessment Officer
DATED: April
24, 2009
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS BY:
John Detorakis ON
HIS OWN BEHALF
Richard Fader FOR
THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Department of Justice FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content