Huzan v. R., [1998] 4 CTC 4, 98 DTC 6543

Smith A.O.:

Judgment in this action was rendered on September 7, 1995. The Plaintiff s appeal of a redetermination and reassessment made by the Minister of National Revenue with respect to the Plaintiffs 1984 and 1985 taxation years was dismissed with costs in favour of the Defendant. On January 29, 1998, the Defendant filed her Bill of Costs against the Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, and, by letter dated March 13, 1998, requested the taxation proceed by way of written representations without the personal appearance of the parties or counsel.

The affidavit of Rosemary DaSilva, sworn on March 13, 1998 and filed with the Court on March 13, 1998, attested to service on the Plaintiff, by way of registered mail, of the Defendant’s Bill and supporting documentation. A discrepancy was noted in the address used for service, however, which was brought by the Registry to the attention of counsel for the Defendant and later satisfied in a Supplementary Affidavit of Service filed on June 4, 1998.

On June 1, 1998, the Registry had occasion to speak by telephone with the Plaintiff’s daughter, Joanne (sic) Huzan. Ms. Huzan advised that “...her father was out of the country and she has been picking up his mail for him.” On being satisfied then that the Plaintiff had been properly served with the Defendant’s Bill, I directed the Registry on June 4, 1998 to request written representations from the parties. The Plaintiff was given until June 19, 1998 to serve and file written representations in reply to the Plaintiffs Bill and the Defendant had until July 3, 1998 to serve and file representations in response to those of the Plaintiff.

On June 8, 1998, the Plaintiff’s daughter, Jo Ann Huzan, wrote to the Registry that:

On behalf of Joseph Huzan, I am replying to your fax sent on June 5. This matter will have to be postponed to August as Mr. Huzan is not in Canada till this time and I am unable to reach him beforehand.

By letter dated June 12, 1998, counsel for the Defendant opposed the request for postponement of the taxation. In the circumstances, I compromised however that the times for the Plaintiff to file his representations would be extended by two weeks, to July 3, 1998. After all, Ms. Huzan’s earlier advice was to the effect that she was picking up mail for her father, the Plaintiff. This would presumably mean that the Plaintiff would be in touch with his daughter from time to time to be informed of important business, such as the present litigation, especially when he had been notified of the Defendant’s request to the Court for taxation of its Bill some four months earlier. Why otherwise would he bother to have someone recover his mail than to ensure that his important affairs were in order?

On June 26, 1998, Ms. Huzan again wrote to the Court requesting an extension, which again was opposed by counsel for the Defendant:

With regards to your letter dated June 16, 1998, I am unable to help you in this matter. As written before, my father, Joseph Huzan, is not expected in Canada until the first week of August. At this time I am unable to reach him so as to inform him about this situation and I am not able to rectify it myself.

Once again I would like to ask for an extension until August so as my father is able to assess this situation and be able to reply to it himself.

In the eventuality of other responsibilities, it is now mid-August that I write these reasons. Yet, still no representations have been received from the Plaintiff, even though more than five months have passed since the time he was first served with the Defendant’s Bill. In the circumstances, I see no justification for further delaying the Defendant’s right to recover its costs. I have therefore proceeded to assess the Defendant’s Bill as follows:

Counsel fees:

Item	Taxable service III/Units	Column Amount claimed
2	Preparation and filing of defence	4	$ 400.00
7	Discovery of documents including affidavit	2	$ 200.00
	and inspection
8	Preparation for examination for discovery	2	$ 200.00
9	Attending examination for discovery, per	2	$ 300.00
	hour (1.5 hours)
13(a)	Preparation for trial, including correspon	2	$ 200.00
	dence and other services not otherwise par
	ticularized
14	Counsel fee to first counsel, per hour in	2	$ 200.00
	Court (1 hour)
	Subtotal:		$1,500.00

The items submitted by the Defendant for the services of counsel are fully in accordance with Tariff B of the Court’s Rules. The minimum units under column III have been claimed. The total amount of $1,500 requested for fees is therefore allowed.

The disbursements claimed by the Defendant are supported by the evidence. They are reasonable and will also be allowed as presented:

In conclusion, the Defendant’s costs which were awarded by judgment of this Court dated September 7, 1995 are assessed in the total sum of $2,065.56. A Certificate of Assessment will issue in that amount.

Order accordingly.