Date: 20001208
Docket: T-1240-98
BETWEEN:
MARIO POSPIECH
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS
FRANÇOIS PILON
Assessment Officer
[1] On November 1, 2000 the respondent, represented by Carole Bureau, filed his bill of costs pursuant to the Order by the Court on June 7, 1999 dismissing with costs Mr. Pospiech's motion for additional time to file the notice of appeal. Patricia Gravel, articling student, asked the Registry to proceed with assessment without a personal appearance by the parties.
[2] On November 14, 2000 we sent a copy of the bill of costs and the supporting affidavit to the applicant, asking him to submit his comments against the said bill by December 5, 2000 at the latest. As there have been no submissions, we are prepared to assess the respondent's costs.
[3] As fees the respondent claimed 7 units for preparation of a contested motion and 6 units for assessment of costs, which corresponds respectively to the maximum in the Tariff B scale.
[4] We set out below certain proceedings entered in the record which we consider relevant in the case at bar:
· the notice of application was filed on June 18, 1998;
· the respondent's motion to strike the notice of application was allowed without costs on September 3, 1998;
· on September 23, 1998 the applicant filed a motion to reduce the time in which the Court would reconsider its order to strike: on October 9, 1998 the Court dismissed the motion without costs;
· on December 2, 1998 the applicant filed a motion to fix the filing of the notice of appeal: on January 14, 1999 the Court dismissed the motion without costs;
· on March 4, 1999 the applicant filed a motion to extend the deadline to file the notice of appeal: on April 6, 1999 the Court dismissed the motion without costs;
· on May 12, 1999 the applicant filed another motion to extend the deadline for filing the notice of appeal: on June 7, 1999 the Court dismissed the motion with costs.
[5] In my opinion, the claim for the maximum units in items 5 and 26 is fully justified in the circumstances. I refer to the factors listed in Rule 400(3), and in particular to paras. (a), (g), (i) and (k). The respondent replied to each of Mr. Pospiech's four motions, the sole purpose of which was to obtain leave to file a notice of appeal. The filing of all these proceedings had the effect of extending the length of the proceeding and in my opinion were vexatious in nature. For these reasons, I will allow 7 and 6 units in items 5 and 26 respectively.
[5] The costs incurred for photocopying and service of documents amount to $112.71 and will be allowed, as they were established by Ms. Gravel's affidavit.
[6] The respondent's costs will accordingly be assessed and allowed in the amount of $1,300 for fees and $112.71 for disbursements. A certificate will be issued in the amount of $1,412.71.
|
François Pilon Assessment Officer |
Halifax, Nova Scotia
December 8, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: T-1240-98
BETWEEN:
MARIO POSPIECH
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT BY WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
REASONS OF: François Pilon, Assessment Officer
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF REASONS: December 8, 2000
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg for the respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario