Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20040204

Docket: T-792-00

Citation: 2004 FC 184

BETWEEN:

EXPRESS HÂVRE ST-PIERRE LTÉE

Applicant

and

DENIS LEBLANC

and

ROBERT DEBLOIS

Respondents

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

DIANE PERRIER - ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]        On November 4, 2003, Johanne Gauthier J. dismissed with costs the applicant's motion for an order extending the time to apply for a review of the order made by Simon Noël J. on September 16, 2003.

[2]        On November 20, 2003, Odette Lacroix, counsel for the respondent Denis Leblanc, filed her bill of costs and asked that it be assessed without a personal appearance by the parties.


[3]        A letter was sent to the parties setting a schedule and they filed their written submissions as provided. I will now proceed with the assessment of costs.

[4]        The respondent claimed the sum of $1,379.05 as fees for services rendered under column III of Tariff B for item 5 (preparation of response and related documents, 6 units x $110), for item 26 (assessment of costs, 3 units x $110) and for item 28 (services by students, paralegals or law clerks - search for precedents, $240).

[5]        Mr. La Forge, counsel for the applicant, maintained that in view of the amount at issue, $7,853.42, the respondent should only be entitled to 3 units for assessable services.

[6]        Under Rule 407 of the FCR, 1998, the assessment officer must assess the costs in accordance with Tariff B. As I consider that what the respondent is asking is included in Tariff B both for item 5 and for item 26, and moreover that it is reasonable, I allow those two items.

[7]        At the same time, the costs for services by students, paralegals or law clerks in the amount of $240 cannot be allowed since all the services provided were done by counsel and moreover assessed. However, when there happens to be a service provided by a student, this would be assessed at 50% of the amount that would be calculated for a lawyer's services.

[8]        The assessable services are therefore $1,138.75 ($990 + taxes).


[9]        On the disbursements in the amount of $419.93, the applicant challenged the research service costs in the amount of $151.77 and the costs of service in the amount of $102.52. The latter mentioned that it is difficult to justify these costs since service by fax is allowed under Rule 140 of the FCR, 1998, and as regards research service costs, there are only two decisions totalling seven pages.

[10]      In my opinion, the service costs in the amount of $102.52 are justified since under Rule 143(b) of the FCR, 1998, any document of 20 pages or more cannot be served by fax without the recipient's consent. As the reply record was 89 pages, and as the applicant had not informed the other party of its address, it may be justified in wishing to serve the reply record by personal service. Further, I feel that the research costs in the amount of $151.77 seem reasonable to me in the circumstances. Accordingly, I allow the sum of $490.93 for disbursements.

[11]      The bill of costs is accordingly assessed and allowed in the amount of $1,558.68. A certificate of assessment will be issued for that amount.

"Diane Perrier"

Assessment Officer

QUÉBEC, QUEBEC

February 4, 2004

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C Tr, LLL


                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                                                      SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                                   T-792-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                   EXPRESS HÂVRE ST-PIERRE LTÉE

Applicant

and

DENIS LEBLANC

and

ROBERT DEBLOIS

Respondents

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE

PLACE OF ASSESSMENT:                                      Québec, Quebec

REASONS BY: DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

DATED:                                                                      February 4, 2004

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

La Forge, Attorneys                                                      For the plaintiff

Québec, Quebec

Heenan, Blaikie, Aubut                                                  For the defendant, Denis Leblanc

Québec, Quebec

 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.