Date: 20030107

Docket: A-695-00

(T-1044-00)

Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 4

BETWEEN:

REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER and

REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO

Appellants

- and -

JEFFERY A. LEVY

Respondent

                                    ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

R. BEZUHLY

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]                A copy of these reasons is filed today in court file T-1044-00 and applies there accordingly. On February 12, 2002, the Plaintiffs'/Appellants' appeal was dismissed with costs. The appeal was pursuant to section 27 of the Federal Court Act from a decision of a judge of the Trial Division decision, (2000) 191 F.T.R. 152, dismissing the appellants' appeal from the order of the Associate Senior Prothonotary striking out, without leave to amend, the action commenced by the appellants.

[2]                Upon reviewing the material, a letter was issued on August 20, 2002, setting a timetable for written submissions. Bills of Costs and associated written material were submitted by the Respondent and filed on September 12, 2002. The Appellants filed their responding documentation on October 2, 2002.

[3]                On July 11, 2002, the Appellants filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada that was subsequently dismissed on October 31, 2002.

Appellant's Position

[4]                The Plaintiffs/Appellants in their written submissions made two points. The first point requested an oral hearing to present their evidence on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and "Traditional Natural Justice", and the second point asked that the assessment of costs be set aside pending the final determination of their appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Respondent's Position

[5]                   The Defendant/Respondent in his rebuttal material stated that an oral hearing was not a requirement under the Federal Court Rules 1998. As to the issue of setting aside the assessment to await the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Respondent mentioned Rothstein J. and AIC LTD. v. Infinity Investment Counsel Ltd. that it is not the general practice to await of the outcome of an appeal before Trial Division costs are dealt with.

Assessment

[6]                This Assessment Officer reviewed the submitted material. The Appellants' written submission on Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not fall into the jurisdiction of the Assessment Officer and since no comment was made on the Respondent's Bills of Costs, the assessment will continue. Also, regardless of the Appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, this assessment would have proceeded.

[7]                I have reviewed the Defendant/Respondent's Bills of Costs. I reviewed each item as per Federal Court Rules 1998 and Tariff B.

Defendant's Bill of Costs - T-1044-00: Items 5., 6., 2., 13., 14., have been allowed as presented. Item 24. requires the exercise of the discretion of the Court. This discretion cannot be exercised by the assessment officer, as established by Mr. Justice Denault in Sim & McBurney v. Buttino Investments Inc. [1997] F.C.J. 1607 (C.A.). Item 24 is not allowed.

Item 26., although presented in the Bill of Costs and not included in the calculation is allowed at $200.00. Disbursements are allowed as presented.

[8]                Respondent's Bill of Costs - A-695-00: Items 9., 22 (a)., are allowed as presented. Item 24. as stated previously, requires the exercise of the discretion of the Court. This discretion cannot be exercised by the assessment officer, as established by Mr. Justice Denault in Sim & McBurney v. Buttino Investments Inc. [1997] F.C.J. 1607 (C.A.). Item 24 is not allowed. Item 26., Assessment of Costs, although not part of the Bill's calculation is allowed as $220.00. Disbursements are allowed as presented.

[9]                Consequently, the Respondent's costs incurred in the Appeal Division, presented at $1,112.46 are allowed at $1,232.46 and costs incurred in the Trial Division, presented at $1,954.50 are allowed at $2,154.50. A certificate shall be issued in each of the divisions.

                                                                                                                        "Rita Bezuhly"                  

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                R. Bezuhly                        

                                                                                                                  Assessment Officer               

Toronto, Ontario

January 7, 2003

           

  

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                        APPEAL DIVISION

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                            A-695-00

(T-1044-00)

STYLE OF CAUSE:                            REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER and REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO

Appellants

         - and -

                                 JEFFERY A. LEVY

Respondent

ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES ON TUESDAY JANUARY 7, 2003

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -

REASONS BY:                         RITA BEZUHLY

DATED:                               TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2003

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:       Reverend Brother Walter Tucker

Reverend Brother Michael Baldasaro

On their own behalf

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

      For the Respondent

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

Date: 20030107

                     Docket: A-695-00

   (T-1044-00)

BETWEEN:

REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER and

REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO

                                 Appellants

- and -

JEFFERY A. LEVY

Respondent

                                                                                

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS