Date: 20021025
Docket: A-355-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 416
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
and
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE CANADA
Appellants
and
WADACERF INTERNATIONAL INC.
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS
FRANÇOIS PILON
Assessment Officer
[1] The appellants' costs were initially assessed on October 18. However, on October 23 Dominique Guimond, counsel for the appellants, notified the Registry that counsel for the respondent, Luc Huppé, had not served on him a copy of his written submissions against his bill of costs. Mr. Guimond was right as there was no proof of service in the record. We apologize for proceeding prematurely with the assessment. These supplementary reasons accordingly result from that oversight. Mr. Guimond filed his written submissions in reply the same day, namely October 23 (doc. No. 30).
[2] He challenged the fact that the photocopying costs were disallowed solely because the actual cost was not known. He maintained it was impossible to know the actual cost of "in-house" photocopies and that for this reason the Court had adopted the practice of paying $0.25 a sheet. He referred the Court to Moloney v. Canada, [1989] 1 C.T.C. 213, and pointed out that on many occasions assessment officers had awarded this amount, even when their decisions did not expressly mention this practice. Mr. Guimond added that the practice is still current, it helps to reduce the costs associated with photocopies and it allows the parties to recover their costs without resorting to a time-consuming and complicated calculation for "in-house" copies.
[3] I appreciate the logic of counsel for the appellants' arguments, knowing that assessment officers from time to time award disbursements without having receipts when the expenses in question appear to have been necessary and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Further, Mr. Guimond cited a decision by the assessment officer Lamy in Lavoie v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] F.C.J. 122, where she mentions that it is accepted practice to allow $0.25 a page.
[4] Moreover, an extract from the decision by Marceau J.A. in Vespoli v. The Queen, dated June 4, 1986 (A-357-85), tends to support that principle. At p. 3, the Court stated:
As to the second issue, we think that, once the conclusion has been reached that the taxing officer has 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.
It is in these circumstances that I will vary my earlier decision in part, allowing the sum of $1,281 for photocopies. An amended bill of costs and certificate will be issued accordingly.
|
|
"François Pilon"
Assessment Officer
|
Halifax, Nova Scotia
October 25, 2002
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: A-355-00
BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ET AL.
-and-
WADACERF INTERNATIONAL INC.
ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
SUPPLEMENTARYREASONS BY: François Pilon, Assessment Officer
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS: October 25, 2002
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg for the appellants
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
de Grandpré, Chaurette, Lévesque for the respondent
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content