Date: 20010418
Docket: T-34-98
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 335
BETWEEN:
NOEL AYANGMA
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
Assessment Officer
[1] This party and party assessment of the defendant's costs proceeded on April 5, 2001 with Mr. Michael Donovan appearing on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. Proof of service of the bill of costs and of the notice of appointment upon the plaintiff was filed but Mr. Ayangma was not present. The Court had granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant on December 29, 1998.
[2] Items 2, 5 (each parties' motion for summary judgment), 8,9, 13(a), 14(a) and 26 are allowed as presented.
[3] Item 4 is refused. The Order of the Court dated March 5, 1998 allowed defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's claim against John Navaux but without costs.
[4] Counsel submits two separate claims under item 5 regarding defendant's motions to order discoveries and to stay proceedings. The two Orders of the Court dated July 3, 1998 are silent as to costs. These two items will accordingly be denied. In the absence of a specific direction from the Court regarding costs in an interlocutory proceeding the assessment officer cannot substitute his/her authority for the Court's. In my opinion the provisions of Rule 400(1) are clear and counsel is referred to two decisions of assessment officers who have dealt with that issue.[1] Furthermore, I refer to "Orkin the Law of Costs (2nd Ed.) 1998 para 105.7:
"Similarly if judgment is given for a party without any
order being made as to costs, no costs can be assessed
by either party; so that when a matter is disposed of on
a motion or at trial with no mention of costs, it is as
though the judge had said that he "saw fit to make no
order as to costs" [citations omitted]. "
[5] Mr. Donovan claims 3 units under item 27 to compensate the defendant following its request for particulars and for the review of a lengthy response from Mr. Ayangma. Counsel argues that there should be some form of indemnification provided for this work carried out. He explains that the defendant was put into the position to seek various clarifications of the plaintiff's claim and then prepare for examination for discoveries after further particulars were provided. In my view it is reasonable to allow this item in this case considering the circumstances as submitted by Mr. Donovan.
[6] Disbursements for Registry fees and for the travel expenses of Mr. Donovan to attend the cross-examination of Mr. Navaux and at the hearing in Charlottetown are supported by evidence and are allowed. Charges for Quick Law research and photocopying appear reasonable and will be allowed as presented.
[7] The defendant's bill of costs, presented at $11,583.24 is assessed and allowed in the amount of $8,783.24.
"François Pilon"
Assessment Officer
Dated the 18th of April, 2001.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket: T-34-98
NOEL AYANGMA
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
PLACE AND DATE OF ASSESSMENT: Halifax, Nova Scotia, April 5, 2001
REASONS BY: F. Pilon, Assessment Officer
DATE OF REASONS: April 18, 2001
APPEARANCES:
No one appearing for the Plaintiff
Michael Donovan for the Defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario for the Defendant
[1] Whyte v. Canada, [2000] C.T.C. 258 (Taxing Officer)
Kibale v. Canada, [1991] 2 F.C. D-9 (Taxing Officer)