Date: 20040921
Docket: T-2330-00
Citation: 2004 FC 1297
BETWEEN:
INCREMONA-SALERNO MARMI AFFINI SICILIANI
(I.S.M.A.S.) s.n.c. and
DANZAS (CANADA) LIMITED
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIPS "CASTOR" and "KATSURAGI",
THE SHIPS "CASTOR" and "KATSURAGI",
HAPAG-LLOYD CONTAINER LINE, GmbH
ATLAS TRAMPSHIP REEDEREI GmbH & Co. m.s.
"CASTOR" KG and TAMA LAKE SHIP HOLDINGS SA
Defendants
Assessment Officer
[1] The Plaintiffs claimed damages and other relief arising out of the shipment of a consignment of polished granite from Italy to Canada. The parties agreed among themselves to seek a declaration as to whether the Marine Liability Act, s. 46(1) applied on the facts therein. On December 4, 2001, the Court ordered that said subsection did apply, gave certain directions to the Defendants and awarded costs against them in any event of the cause. Those Defendants associated with the ship "Castor" (hereafter the "Castor Defendants") appealed. On December 2, 2002, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed their appeal (in court file A-30-02), set aside the December 4, 2001 order of the Federal Court, declared that s. 46(1) did not apply and awarded costs in both courts to the "'Castor Defendants". I issued a timetable for written disposition of the bill of costs of the "Castor Defendants".
[2] The Plaintiffs and the "Castor Defendants" led evidence and submissions, comparable to what was led during the assessment of the bill of costs of the defendants associated with the ship "Katsuragi" (hereafter the "Katsuragi Defendants"), concerning my jurisdiction to proceed in the face of a settlement document. For the reasons given for the assessment of the costs of the "Katsuragi Defendants", reported at [2004] F.C.J. No. 1275 (A.O.), I conclude that I should proceed with the assessment of the costs of the "Castor Defendants".
[3] The Plaintiffs conceded the disbursements claimed at $865.60. The Plaintiffs argued that there is no basis for an allowance for item 27 (claimed at the mid-range value of 2 units for services including a response to a Notice of Status Review). Further, as this assessment of costs is straightforward, the claim under item 26 should be reduced from 3 to 2 units.
[4] For item 27, the "Castor Defendants" argued that a mid-range allowance for item 27 is appropriate given that their response to the Notice of Status Review, being the only submission other than that of the Plaintiffs, was followed by the Court in its subsequent directions. An allowance under item 26 of 3 units, from the available range of 2 - 6 units, would be reasonable given the very detailed affidavit and written representations led in support of the bill of costs.
Assessment
[5] I find that the "Castor Defendants" have met the threshold for item 27 consistent with Mitchell v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1530 (A.O.). In matters such as Maxim's Bakery Ltd. v. Maxim's Ltd., [2000] F.C.J. No. 2138 (A.O.), I have allowed indemnity under item 27 for a reply to a notice of status review. I allow the 2 units claimed here. Given that I think the difficulty of this assessment of costs was comparable to that for the "Katsuragi Defendants", I allow only 2 units for item 26. The bill of costs of the "Castor Defendants", presented at $3,952.80, is assessed and allowed at $3,834.55.
(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"
Assessment Officer
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2330-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: INCREMONA-SALERNO MARMI AFFINI
SICILIANI (I.S.M.A.S.) s.n.c. et al.
v.
THE SHIPS "CASTOR" and "KATSURAGI" et al.
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: September 21, 2004
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Bromley Chapelski for Plaintiffs
Vancouver, BC
Bull, Housser & Tupper for the Owners and
Vancouver, BC All Others Interested in
the Ship "Katsuragi" et al.
Bernard & Partners for the Owners and
Vancouver, BC All Others Interested in
the Ship "Castor" et al.