Date: 20020228

Docket: A-531-00

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 87

BETWEEN:

                                                         WILLARD WILSON and

                                                               DAVID CROSBY

                                                                                                                                          Applicants

                                                                        - and -

                                             ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

                                            ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

The Respondent's Position

[1]                The Respondent was awarded costs of this judicial review. The evidence supports the bill of costs presented at $1,607.66.

The Applicants' Position

[2]                The Applicants noted that the higher end of the range selected for preparation of the Memorandum of Fact and Law was balanced by the claim of only one unit for appearance at the hearing. The Applicants argued that the disbursement of almost $800.00 for the Respondent's Record seems high, given that no transcripts were required. The Applicants argued, further to Rule 409, that the costs should be reduced to a nominal amount because this litigation addressed a matter of public interest relevant for all Band Councils across Canada, ie. whether honoraria paid to Councillors are earnings for the purposes of section 57(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations.

Assessment

[3]                The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, 1987, Volume I, at p. 1936 defines nominal as "...4. Existing in name only in distinction to real or actual; merely named, stated, or expressed, without reference to reality or fact". Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, 1999, at p. 1077 defines nominal, relative to "price or amount", as "trifling, esp. as compared to what would be expected". The costs awarded here by the Judgment are not full indemnity, but they are a substantive reflection of the principle of partial indemnity captured in tariffs of superior courts of record. Rule 409 permits me to consider factors in Rule 400(3), but it does not authorize me to exercise Rule 400(1) discretion (per the definition of assessment officer in Rule 2 and the constitution of the Court outlined in the Federal Court Act, s. 5). I think that Rule 400(1) reserves the discretion for nominal costs to the Court, but not to assessment officers.

[4]                The Respondent's Record was filed April 23, 2001. Invoice number 106459 for $114.66 addressed preparation of an unspecified book some four months later, but only a few weeks prior to the scheduled hearing date. That book could have been the Respondent's authorities. In the circumstances, I find the disbursements reasonable and consistent with the threshold expressed in Carlile v. The Queen, 97 D.T.C. 5284. Finally, I note that, without commenting on the likelihood of success, the Respondent could have argued on the face of Tariff B for additional fee items. The Respondent's Bill of Costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $1,607.66.

(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"

     Assessment Officer

Vancouver, B.C.

February 28, 2002