Date: 19990429

Docket: A-627-97

BETWEEN:

     BRIAN CHRISTOPHER BRADLEY

     Appellant

     - and -

     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Respondent

     - and -

     THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

     Intervenor

     ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

FRANCOIS PILON

Assessment Officer

     This appeal was dismissed with costs on March 17, 1999. The Respondent filed

its Bill of Costs seeking $2,000 in fees and no amount for disbursements.¹

     Mr. Michael Donovan was acting on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada. The Appellant, Mr. Brian Bradley, was served with the Appointment, but was not present at the taxation.²

     The items listed in the Bill of Costs reflect the highest level of compensation in column III. Mr. Donovan referred to specific factors to be taken into consideration in awarding costs as provided in Rule 400(3), namely paragraphs:

     (a) the result of the proceeding;

     (g) the amount of work;

     (i) any conduct of a party that tended to shorten or unnecessarily lengthen the      duration of the proceeding;

     (k) whether any step in the proceeding was

         (i) improper, vexatious or, unnecessary, or

         (ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution.

     Mr. Donovan referred the Assessment Officer to the following items or events as support for seeking the maximum units:

     1.      The Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on September 16, 1997 along          with his Memorandum of Fact and Law;

     2.      On October 1, 1997 the Respondent filed a motion to extend time to file          its Memorandum of Fact and Law pursuant to Rule 1208; this motion was          made necessary by the fact that the Appellant had filed his Memorandum          of Fact and Law prior to the preparation of the Appeal Book.

         The Court agreed and by Order dated October 29, 1997 allowed the          extension of time sought, but without costs.

     3      On March 9, 1998 Mr. Bradley filed a motion for an Order to provide legal          counsel to represent him in the appeal. Mr. Donovan opposed the motion          by filing written representations. The Court dismissed the motion without          costs stating it was without authority to appoint counsel for the Appellant.

     4.      On August 12, 1998 the Appellant filed a Requisition for Hearing stating          that he was unable to communicate with the Respondent regarding          available dates; Mr. Donovan's said he was not consulted about his          availability and had to file written submissions regarding hearing dates.

     5      Respondent is not claiming any amounts for disbursements. Mr. Donovan          argued he could have claimed for such services as photocopies, but chose          not to; in his view this is an additional factor in support of claiming the          maximum units.

     6.      Mr. Donovan stated it took him approximately two hours to prepare          himself for the taxation.

     In the absence of the Appellant at the taxation I have had to weigh carefully the arguments put forward by Mr. Donovan as well as the importance to be given to the various factors in Rule 400(3).

     I am prepared to give some consideration to items 2,3 and 4 listed above as elements creating more work for counsel. However, I do not agree that these elements are, of themselves, sufficient to warrant the maximum number of units.

     Keeping in mind the concept of partial indemnity and the impact of the above discussed factors in assessing costs I think the following assessment is fair to both parties:

Items                  Units Claimed          Units Granted

19                      7                  5

22(9)                      6                  4

25                      1                  1

26                      6                  4

                         

            Total          20                  14

     In conclusion, the Respondent's Bill of Costs is assessed in the amount of $1,400.00. A Certificate of Assessment will issue accordingly.

                             François Pilon                                  Assessment Officer

Halifax, N.S.

April 29, 1999.

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

STYLE OF CAUSE:      Brian Christopher Bradley

                     - and -

                 The Attorney General of Canada

                     - and -

                 The Canadian Human Rights Commission

COURT NO.:          A-627-97

DATE OF HEARING:      April 28, 1999

PLACE OF HEARING:      Halifax, Nova Scotia

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS BY:      François Pilon

                             Assessment Officer

DATE OF REASONS:      April 29, 1999

APPEARANCES:

Michael Donovan      for the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Mr. Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada      for the Respondent

__________________

     ¹ At the taxation Mr. Donovan corrected the total number of units claimed from 23 to 20.

     ² On April 12, 1999 the Appellant had contacted this Assessment Officer to discuss the validity of the Respondent's legal right to assess costs in the Federal Court.