Citation 2007 FC 965
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS- REASONS
Assessment Officer
[1] The applicant filed a motion in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules for an Order pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Courts Rules in which the applicant sought an extension of time to file its notice of application for a judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission Notice of Application.The parties filed their respective motion materials.June 20, 2007 The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington issued an Order dismissing the applicant’s notice of motion for an extension of time and awarded costs to the respondent.
[2] On July 16, 2007 the respondents filed their Bill of Costs with a supporting affidavit requesting the assessment be done in writing without personal appearance.
[3] On June 17, 2007 I issued a timetable for reply and rebuttal materials.
[4] The respondent’s are requesting assessable services for two items: (a) – preparation and filing of a contested motion, including materials and responses thereto (seven units) and (b) – assessment of costs (four units). These items are requested under Column III of Tariff B, pursuant to Rule 407 of the Federal Courts Rules.
[5] In regard to the assessable services the assessable range for item (a) - preparation and filing of a contested motion, including materials and responses thereto is three to seven, and for item (b) – assessment of costs the range is two to six.
[6] I agree with the applicant’s position and feel the simplicity of the motion does not warrant units at the top of the range, the matter was not complex. I have therefore reduced both amounts to the lower end of the column III scale; item (a) is allowed at three units and item (b) is allowed at two units.Based on the foregoing, the total assessable service amount will be reduced from the requested $1,320.00 to an allowed total assessable service amount of $600.00.
[7] Disbursements, although established by affidavit, are not accompanied by exhibits as is customary for specific disbursements sought.I have therefore chosen to address the three claimed disbursements collectively namely (a) photocopies, (b) computer research and (c) courier and I allow $286.78 in total for these three items. My reasoning reflects that as pronounced by Taxing Officer Stinson in the case of Carlile v.
|
|
"...Taxing Officers are often faced with less than exhaustive proof and must be careful, while ensuring that unsuccessful litigants are not burdened with unnecessary or unreasonable costs, to not penalize successful litigants by denial of indemnification when it is apparent that real costs were indeed incurred. ...”
|
[8] The amount of HST (harmonized sales tax) is equally adjusted and is allowed at $40.15 to properly reflect the tax attracted by the allowed disbursements of $286.78The total disbursements are hereby reduced from the requested $561.29 to an allowed $326.93.
[9] The bill of costs presented at $1,881.29 is accordingly assessed and allowed in the amount of $926.93. A certificate is issued in the Federal Court proceeding for $926.93.
Assessment Officer
September 25, 2007
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: 07-T-32
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENRAL OF
-and- LYNN FRENCH
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -
REASONS BY: Willa Doyle, Assessment Officer
DATED: September 25, 2007
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Melissa Cameron FOR THE APPLICANTS
Trisha Gallant-Leblanc FOR THE RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Justice
Atlantic Regional Office
Cox & Palmer