Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20020906

Docket: T-1723-00

Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 942

BETWEEN:

                                                        TRANS-TEC SERVICES INC.

                                                                                                                                                          Plaintiff

                                                                              - and -

                        THE SHIP "LYUBOV ORLOVA" and THE OWNERS AND ALL

                          OTHERS INTERESTED IN THE SHIP "LYUBOV ORLOVA"

                                                                                                                                                      Defendant

                                               ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

FRANÇOIS PILON

Assessment Officer

        The Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the Defendant was allowed with costs by Order rendered on August 28, 2002. The Plaintiff 's appeal was later dismissed with costs by the Federal Court of Appeal.


[2] The assessment of Defendant's bill of costs took place on August 28, 2002 by telephone conference with Mr. John Sinnott, Q.C. acting on behalf of the Defendant and Mr. Jean-François Bilodeau, acting for the Plaintiff.

[3] Mr. Bilodeau does not object to the items listed under assessable services. However, he opposes the highest level of units sought for each item. Counsel argues this is not a complex matter, that the litigation centered around the issue of the validity of the payment made. In his opinion the middle range of units provided in Column III would be reasonable and acceptable. Mr. Sinnott did not reply to the Plaintiff's arguments.

[4] I agree with Mr. Bilodeau's position and will allow the following units for the items claimed:

Items claimed

Number of Units allowed

item 2

6 units

item 5

5 units

item 6

6 units

item 7

4 units

item 8

3 units

item 9

6 units

item 25

1 unit

item 26

4 units


[5] The only contested item of disbursement is the inclusion of the 15% tax on sales and services. In Mr. Bilodeau's view the tax is not payable because his client is not resident of Newfoundland. He says it is a common practice for Quebec lawyers to omit charging the sales and service tax for non-residents.

[6] In response Mr. Sinnott submits that their firm does not charge the said tax to foreign clients (outside Canadian jurisdiction), but do so to anyone living or having a place of business in Canada.

[7] Payment of any sales and service taxes is provided at paragraph (3) (b) of Tariff B. The Goods and Service Tax is governed by Federal legislation having effect in Newfoundland. As such it may be recovered by the Defendant in his bill of costs.

[8] The Defendant's bill of costs will accordingly be assessed and allowed in the amounts of $3,850.00 for assessable services and $659.53 for disbursements. A certificate assessment will issue in the amount of $4,509.53

Halifax, Nova Scotia                                                                                                             

September 6, 2002                                       François Pilon

Assessment Officer


                        FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                              TRIAL DIVISION

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO. T-1723-00

BETWEEN:

TRANS-TEC SERVICES INC.

                                                                Plaintiff

-and-

THE SHIP "LYUBOV ORLOVA"ET AL

                                                                Defendant

ASSESSMENT BY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON AUGUST 28, 2002

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS BY: François Pilon, Assessment Officer

DATE OF REASONS:       September 6, 2002

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Jean-François Bilodeau        For the Plaintiff

Mr. John Sinnott, Q.C.                  For the Defendant

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Flynn Rivard

Montreal, Quebec                  For the Plaintiff

Lewis Sinnott

St. John's, Newfoundland                 For the Defendant

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.