Birkett v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2008 FCA 296

 

Date: 20081002

Docket: A-255-07

Citation: 2008 FCA 296

BETWEEN:

DAVID BIRKETT

Appellant

 

and

 

 

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Respondent

and

 

SUE GOODWIN

Respondent

 

 

 

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Johanne Parent

Assessment Officer

[1]               On April 4, 2008, the Court dismissed with costs the appeal from the dismissal of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT). Counsel for both the appellant and the respondent CHRT filed their submissions on costs and agreed on the written disposition of the assessment of this bill of costs.

 

 

[2]               The assessable services claimed under Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules for the preparation of the responding memorandum of fact and law (Item 19), for counsel fee on hearing of appeal to first counsel (Item 22) and for the assessment of costs (Item 26) were not contested and will be assessed as claimed.

 

[3]               With regard to the claim for services after judgment not otherwise specified (Item 25), it is allowed as claimed as I am satisfied that counsel has reviewed the outcome of this affair with his client.

 

[4]               Counsel for the appellant questions the disbursement for travel expenses on the basis that the CHRT has an obligation to treat all appellants equally. According to the argument made, parties not residing in Ottawa should not be burdened with travel expenses. I agree with my learned colleague’s reasons for assessment in the trial file of this matter, Goodwin v. Birkett, [2007] F.C.J. No. 1705, “…the arrangements for the location of the Crown’s legal representative are permissible if reasonable as here”.  Considering the evidence provided and the reasonableness of the expenses, the travel disbursements are allowed as claimed.

 

[5]               The respondent claims $171.36 in Provincial Sales Tax (PST) on assessable services. The definition of “taxable service” found under subsection 1(1) of the Retail Sales Tax Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.31, does not mention “legal service”. As costs assessment should only indemnify for actual costs, I disallow the amount claimed.

 

[6]               The bill of costs is allowed at $2,517.91 plus GST ($102.00) for a total amount of $2,619.91.

     “Johanne Parent”

Toronto, Ontario

October 2, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

DOCKET:                                          A-255-07

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          DAVID BIRKETT v. CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and SUE GOODWIN

 

 

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

 

 

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    JOHANNE PARENT

 

DATED:                                                                                 OCTOBER 2, 2008

 

 

 

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:

 

Charles C. Roach	FOR THE APPELLANT
Daniel Poulin	FOR THE RESPONDENT Canadian Human Rights Commission

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Roach, Schwartz & Associates Toronto, ON	FOR THE APPELLANT
Canadian Human Rights Commission Litigation Services Division Ottawa, ON	FOR THE RESPONDENT Canadian Human Rights Commission