Date: 20020919

Docket: A-408-00

(T-557-00)

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 340

           

BETWEEN:   

                       

                                                            EMILE MENNES                                               

Appellant

- and -

                                                   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                              

Respondent

     

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

S. FINDLAY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]             A copy of these reasons filed today in court file T-557-00 applies there accordingly. On

June 12, 2000, the Plaintiff (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal from the Trial Division decision to strike out the Statement of Claim. On February 25, 2002, the Plaintiff (Appellant) filed a Notice of Discontinuance. A timetable was issued to both parties for written disposition of the Respondent's (Defendant's) bill of costs. I note that several months have lapsed between the filing of the Notice of Discontinuance and my letter of June 25, 2002 setting the timetable. The Plaintiff (Applicant) has taken no steps, as addressed in his reply, to have the Notice of Discontinuance set aside and the appeal heard. The Plaintiff (Appellant), by way of written submissions, takes no position on the Defendant's bill of costs other than to state his opposition. I intend to proceed in writing with the assessment of costs further to Federal Court Rules 402 and 412.

[2]    I note the Court's obiter dictum observation in IBM Canada Limited-IBM Canada

Limitée v. Xerox of Canada Limited, and Xerox Corporation [1977]1 F.C.181 at 182:

The bills of costs from the Trial Division and this Court were combined and in hearing this application we do not wish it to be taken that we consider that combining bills of two different divisions of the Federal Court is proper procedure. In fact, we seriously question the propriety of proceeding in that way.

For technical consistency and in the interest of expediency, I have filed the bill of costs as assessed appropriately in each of the Appeal and Trial Files.

[3]    I examined each item claimed in the bill of costs (presented in total at $ 1, 030.92) within the parameters of the Federal Court Rules and Tariff B. The Defendant (Respondent) claimed $330.00 for item 5, relative to the preparation and filing of the contested motion in the Trial Division whereby the resulting order was silent as to costs. I have no authority as an assessment officer to allow costs if the Court has not exercised its authority for costs in the first instance under Federal Court Rule 400(1). As such, the amount claimed by the Defendant (Respondent) for the contested motion is denied. The minimum amount claimed by the Defendant (Respondent) for item 19 relative to the Appeal memorandum of fact and law is reasonable and costs are allowed at $440.00. The Respondent (Defendant) claimed a single amount under item 26 for the assessment of costs for these two proceedings. I allow item 26 for the assessment of costs at $220.00 and I will reflect this on the Appeal file. The disbursement for photocopying invoice number 87951 does not indicate the job date, however, it includes the date of the invoice, May 14, 2001, and follows the filing date of the Appeal. The amount claimed for photocopying at $40.92 is reasonable and therefore allowed in the bill of costs for the Appeal Division.

[4]    Accordingly, a certificate of assessment will issue in the amount of $700.92 in the Appeal Division and for nil dollars in the Trial Division.

                                       "Susan Findlay"               

Assessment Officer            

        

Toronto, Ontario

September 19, 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

   Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                           A-408-00

(T-557-00)

STYLE OF CAUSE:             EMILE MENNES

                                                                                             Appellant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                          Respondent

ASSESSMENTS OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -                        

REASONS BY:                                  SUSAN FINDLAY

DATED:                                              THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2002            

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          Emile Mennes      

                                                            P.O. Box

Campbell Ford, Ontario

K0L 1L0

For the Appellant, on his own behalf

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

Date: 20020919

     Docket: A-408-00

      (T-577-00)

BETWEEN:

EMILE MENNES

                    Appellant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                  Respondent

                                               

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -

REASONS