 Printer-Friendly Page
Date: 20010712 Docket: A-722-97 Neutral Citation: 2001 FCA 237 Between: LYNE PÉRUSSE Applicant AND THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This was an application for judicial review that was allowed with costs on March 10, 2000. Following this judgment, the applicant filed her bill of costs on May 11, 2001 and asked that it be assessed without personal appearance of the parties. To this effect, the respondent submitted his written representations on June 7 and the applicant produced her reply on July 9. [2] Counsel for the applicant is claiming in his bill of costs fees under items 17 to 27 of Tariff B. In his observations, the respondent argued that these items are reserved for services rendered in an appeal, while this case is an application for judicial review under the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, the respondent says he agrees that counsel fees be awarded as follows: item 1 (5 units), item 13 (3 units), item 14 (2 units x 2.5 hours), item 25 (1 unit) and item 26 (4 units), for a total of $1,980.00. Since the applicant has agreed to amend its bill of costs along those lines, this sum is awarded as fees. [3] In light of the parties' representations, the disbursements incurred in this case in the amount of $3,258.89 are assessed as follows: · the registry fees of $50.00 under Tariff A are awarded, as are the fees for the bailiff ($107.26), mail ($46.85), reproduction ($135.46) and travel ($842.19), which are not contested. · the costs incurred in the amount of $1,571.00 for the transcript are awarded as are. A portion of this amount is contested, but the representations of Mr. Cavanagh are that the transcript of the examination for discovery of June 10, 1997 was used in the composition of the applicant's record. · the respondent contests the amounts for costs of mail ($12.38), reproduction ($127.75), faxes ($326.00) and telephone ($40.00) because they "[Translation] are not supported by any invoices or clear evidence of the disbursement, they do not represent the actual cost of the disbursement, but rather they are part of the normal path taken by a case and the general expenses of a law office." Indeed, the evidence submitted in support of these claims is deficient, but the explanations supplied by Mr. Cavanagh allow me to find that the amounts claimed are reasonable and therefore allowed. To this effect, I refer the parties to the decision of Taxing Officer Charles Stinson in Carlile v. Canada (1997), F.C.J. no. 885, at p. 6: Taxing Officers are often faced with less than exhaustive proof and must be careful, while ensuring that unsuccessful litigants are not burdened with unnecessary or unreasonable costs, to not penalize successful litigants by denial of indemnification when it is apparent that real costs were indeed incurred. This presumes a subjective role for the Taxing Officer in the process of taxation. [4] The applicant's costs are assessed and allowed in the amount of $5,238.89. A certificate shall issue for that amount. MICHELLE LAMY ASSESSMENT OFFICER MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC July 12, 2001 Certified true translation Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION Date: 20010712 Docket: A-722-97 Between: LYNE PÉRUSSE Applicant AND THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD FILE NO: A-722-97 Between: LYNE PÉRUSSE Applicant AND THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE PLACE OF ASSESSMENT:Montréal,Quebec REASONS OF MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER DATE OF REASONS: July 12, 2001 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Guy Cavanagh New Richmond, Quebec for the applicant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario for the respondent |
|||
|
|||
|
|
