Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 2421998


Docket: T-2826-93

BETWEEN:

     RANDOLPH E. LIEB

     Plaintiff

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

     (in right of Canada)

     Defendant

     TAXATION OF COSTS - REASONS

FRANCOIS PILON, TAXING OFFICER

     This is a taxation on a party-and-party basis of the Defendant's costs of this action.

     These proceedings were commenced by way of a Statement of Claim filed on December 3, 1993. The Trial of this action took place at St. John's, Newfoundland on September 2, 1997 and the Court (The Honourable Mr. Justice Dubé) rendered his Judgment on September 10, 1997, dismissing the action with costs.

     Mr. James D. Hughes, who is acting on behalf of the Defendant, filed a Bill of Costs on November 6, 1997 and requested that costs be assessed on the basis of written submissions, without personal appearance of parties. The Plaintiff Mr. Randolph E. Lieb is a lay litigant who represented himself throughout the proceedings.

     On December 16, 1997 the Registry wrote to the parties inviting written representations from both sides and setting out time frames for the filing of their responses. Written submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff were filed on January 19,1998. I now proceed with the taxation of the Defendant's costs.

     I have carefully reviewed the list of items claimed by counsel for the Defendant in accordance with the provisions of Rule 346(1) prior to exercising my discretion to allow, refuse or reduce a claim.

     The Bill of Costs was filed as follows:

                                 Column III

                                 No. of Units

Item      Taxable Service          No. of Hours      Sought          Total Units

1      Preparation and filing of

     Statement of Defence          n/a              6              6

2      Preparation and filing of

     Defence to Counterclaim          n/a              6              6

4      Preparation and filing of

     Joint Application for trial

     date                      n/a              3              3

7      Preparation of Defendant's

     List of Documents, Affidavit

     and Inspection and filing          n/a              4              4

8      Preparation for Examination

     of Randolph E. Lieb          n/a              4              4

9      Attending on Examination of

     Discovery of Randolph E. Lieb      n/a              3              6

13      Counsel Fees

     (a) Preparation for Trial          n/a              5              5

14      Counsel Fees

     (a) to First Counsel per

     hours in Court              9              3              27

24      Travel by counsel to

     attend trial on Sept 2/97          4              4              16

25      Services after Judgment          n/a              1              1

26      Taxation of costs                          4              4

     82 Units x $100.00                                  $8,200.00

     DISBURSEMENTS

The Registry

     Paid for issuance of four subpoenas                      $20

Sheriff

     Paid Deputy Sheriff for service of two subpoenas              87.52

Other Disbursements as were reasonably necessary

(Tariff B, Part III, s.3)

     Paid Darlene Wells, Re:Discovery                      342.00

     Paid for registered mail postage of document to R. Lieb          12.31

     Paid Provincial Ticketing Centre for parking at the Court          12.00

     Paid Conduct Money                              462.40

Services, sales use or consumption taxes paid or payable on counsel fees and disbursements -

(Tariff B, Part III, s.2)

GST                                              196.10

HST                                              392.70

Total Costs                                          $9,725.03

     Mr. Hughes claims 6 units for items 1 and 2. I will reduce these 2 items to 4 units each.

     The claim for 3 units for the preparation and filing of the Joint Application is taxed off in the absence of any specific provision in the Rules.

     Items no. 7 and 8 are allowed as proposed at the 4 unit level, the affidavit of documents of the Defendant being reasonably lengthy and a supplementary list having been filed at a later date.

     Item no. 9 is allowed in part (3 units for one hour) due to the lack of evidence that the examination of the Plaintiff lasted longer than 1 hour.

     Item no. 13 is allowed at the 5 unit level.

     Counsel claims $2,700.00 for counsel fees at trial based upon the duration of 9 hours at the 3 unit level. The minutes of hearing indicate that the trial lasted 7.5 hours, thus reducing the amount allowable to $2,250.00

     Defendant claims 16 units under item 14 for travel by counsel. This item cannot be allowed by a Taxing Officer in the absence of specific provisions in the Judgment of the Court.

     Item no. 25 is allowed and item 26 for the taxation of costs is not because this taxation has proceeded without the personal appearance of parties.

     Disbursements

     All items of disbursements are supported by acceptable evidence and will be allowed, with one exception. The amount of $462.40 for paid conduct money is not supported by the evidence and will be disallowed.

     The harmonized sales tax of 15% payable on counsel fees and disbursements is allowed in the amount of $483.57.

     The Defendant's Bill of Costs is assessed in the total amount of $5,707.40.

                            

                                 Francois Pilon

                                 Taxing Officer

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.: T-2826-93

BETWEEN:

     RANDOLPH E. LIEB

     Plaintiff

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

     (in right of Canada)

     Defendant

TAXATION IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

TAXATION OF COSTS-REASONS BY FRANCOIS PILON, TAXING OFFICER

DATE OF REASONS: February 24, 1998

BILL OF COSTS SUBMITTED BY: Mr. James D. Hughes      for the Defendant

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Hughes & Brannan

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.