Date: 20030304
Docket: A-82-99
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 115
BETWEEN:
ANTHONY MILLER
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
FRANÇOIS PILON
Assessment Officer
This appeal was dismissed with costs on June 11, 2002. The assessment of the Respondents' bill of costs took place on February 25, 2003 by telephone conference with the Applicant, Mr. Anthony Miller who is self-represented, and Mr. John Bodurtha acting on behalf of the Respondent.
[2] Item 2 - Preparation and filing of Respondent's Record. Mr. Miller objected to the 6 units requested for this service because this case, he said, was a simple one requiring little work. In response Mr. Bodurtha agreed to lower the number of units from 6 to 4.
[3] Item 4 - Preparation and filing of two uncontested Motions. Counsel for the Respondent consented to withdraw both items from the bill of costs because the Orders of the Court were silent as to costs. Under the provisions of Rule 400 (1) the Court has full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs. Assessment officers cannot compensate parties for this service unless the Court has specifically ordered it.
[4] Item 8 - Preparation for cross-examination on affidavit. Mr. Bodurtha claimed 3 units for this service. The Applicant argued the minimum of 2 units should be allowed because the examination involved only one narrow point, and did not last one hour. Mr. Miller also indicated that the transcript of the cross- examination was only thirteen pages long.
[5] Mr. Bodurtha replied that, although the actual cross-examination was relatively short, it took a significant amount of time to read through two hundred and thirteen pages of the Tax Court transcript in preparation for the examination. I agree with counsel that this item of costs is directly related to the amount of work required for his preparation and am convinced that, in the circumstances, 3 units are justifiable.
[6] Item 9 - Attendance at the cross-examination on affidavit. Mr. Miller noted that the examination lasted approximately half an hour and consequently should be reduced to 1 unit. Considering that this service is strictly for the attendance of counsel at the examination, which examination lasted thirty minutes, I find in the Applicant's favour.
[7] Item 14 - Counsel fee per hour in Court. Mr. Bodurtha claimed 2 units for two hours in Court at the hearing of the appeal. It was Mr. Miller's recollection that the hearing did not take longer than one hour. The abstract of hearing indicates the Court was in session between 2:50 and 4:20 on June 11, 2002, a total of one hour and thirty minutes. In the present case I will use the exact formula to calculate the appropriate compensation. (90 minutes divided by 60 minutes x 2 units x $110.00 = $330.00).
[8] Item 25 for services after judgment. As explained to parties at the assessment the single unit for services after judgment is usually granted to the party whose costs are assessed.
[9] Item 26. Costs of the assessment. Mr. Miller contends that the amount of $220.00 claimed for the assessment of costs should be reduced to reflect the duration of the assessment (approximately 20 minutes). However, counsel for the Crown correctly pointed out that he was requesting the lowest possible number of units under Tariff B. I agree with Mr. Bodurtha; assessment officers do not have the authority to allow a number of units lower or higher than those provided for by the Rules.
[10] Disbursements of the following expenses are supported by evidence and will be allowed:
- $19.36 for courier charges
- $112.08 for a copy of a transcript
- $48.80 for photocopies made at the Federal Court Registry
- $8.93 for Quicklaw research
[11] Photocopying charges in the amounts of $9.60 and $183.60 with regards to the filing of two motion records and the Respondent's application record respectively are opposed by the Applicant. Mr. Miller stated that photocopies can be made at commercial outlets for as little as $0.03 a page and that these costs should reflect reality. On the other hand, Mr. Bodurtha contended that the charge of $0.20 per page is reasonable for photocopies of documents required to be filed in the course of legal proceedings.
[12] In my opinion the charge of $0.20 per page is not unreasonable considering that the Federal Court itself charges $0.40 and that most assessing officers will allow up to $0.25 for photocopies unless the actual expense be proven otherwise. In allowing this disbursement as submitted I rely upon two decisions of the Court. In Vespoli v. Canada [1986] F.C.J. No. 358 Mr. Justice Marceau on behalf of the Federal Court of Appeal wrote:
"...we think that, once the conclusion had been reached that the taxing officer had been right in adding to the bill of costs an item for photocopying disbursements considered by him as having been essential for the conduct of the action, the learned Motions Judge had no reason to intervene. The amounts allowed were not so inappropriate as to suggest that an error of principle had been committed in their calculation."
[13] Furthermore, Mr. John Hargrave, Prothonotary, assessing costs in Watts v. Doolan [2000] F.C.J. No. 470 stated at paragraph 19:
"There are the usual claims for sundry items, including photocopying. The latter is presented at $307.79. By comparison with the statutory fee which the Court charges for photocopying, this is a modest disbursement."
[14] The bill of costs of the respondent, presented at $2,582.37, is assessed and allowed in the amount of $1,922.37.
Halifax, Nova Scotia
March 4, 2003 François Pilon
Assessment Officer
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-82-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: Anthony Miller v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, N.S. and Crapeau, P.E.I. by teleconference
DATE OF HEARING: February 25, 2003
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: François Pilon
DATED: March 4, 2003
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Anthony Miller, on his own behalf For the Applicant
Mr. John Bodurtha For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
Ottawa, ON For the Respondent
Email this Content