Date: 20001229
Docket: A-157-98
BETWEEN:
HÉLÈNE BEAULIEU
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
- and -
GEORGE THOMSON
- and -
YVON TARTE, ADJUDICATOR,
PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS BOARD
Mis-en-cause
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS
FRANÇOIS PILON
Assessment Officer
[1] On November 17, 2000 the respondent, represented by Michelle Lavergne, filed her bill of costs pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Appeal on November 1, 2000 and asked that the assessment be on the basis of written representations. Hélène Beaulieu filed her written submissions in opposition to the bill of costs on December 15, 2000 and Ms. Lavergne replied on December 20.
[2] First, Ms. Beaulieu objected to the respondent filing two bills of costs, one in this proceeding and the other in the related case A-159-98. This point was decided on December 28, 2000 by assessment of the bill of costs in the related case in the amount of $0.
[3] The appellant raised objections to each of the four items for fees, referring specifically to the guidelines set out in s. 400(3) of the Federal Court Rules.
[4] Ms. Lavergne claimed seven units for preparing the memorandum of fact and law under item 19. Ms. Beaulieu noted that the memorandum consisted only of thirteen pages and submitted that this question had already been dealt with by the courts, and that accordingly it:
· did not represent long hours of research on complicated matters,
· did not constitute an extraordinary workload, and
· is of no public interest.
Accordingly, she suggested that the minimum of four units should be awarded.
[5] Ms. Lavergne, for her part, contended that the appeals dealt with two different points of law which had to be clearly defined and explained to the Court and that the fact she was able to limit the discussion and summarize the real points at issue in a brief memorandum did not mean that the work necessary for its preparation should be estimated in proportion to the number of pages. Further, the respondent maintained that the work should also be assessed in light of the fact that she had to
devote a lot of time to understanding how the appellant had presented her arguments based on the evidence she had submitted. The arguments made on either side appear to me to be equally valid. In the circumstances, I will reduce the number of units from seven to six.
[6] The respondent sought an amount for $600 for counsel's fees at the hearing, that is, two hours multiplied by three units. In response, Ms. Beaulieu filed the transcript of the hearing indicating that it lasted for 1 hour and 21 minutes and suggested that only fees for the actual hearing time should be assessed. I agree with this rule, which has been upheld several times by the assessment officers of this Court.
[7] Further, Ms. Beaulieu asked that the number of units be reduced to two since the difficulty represented by the question of an extension of time was not very great and additionally counsel for the respondent made no submissions to the Court, since the latter did not think it necessary to hear her.
[8] Ms. Lavergne, for her part, argued that the three units requested should be awarded. In her submission the fact that the respondent did not have to address the Court did not mean the number of units should be reduced. Counsel for the respondent had to follow the hearing and was prepared to answer the latter's arguments. Further, she added that the fact the respondent did not have to argue worked in the appellant's favour since this reduced the assessable length of the hearing.
[9] I am not persuaded that this item of the Tariff deserves three units and will decide this point in the appellant's favour. In my opinion, two units are reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The amount of $600 claimed will be reduced to $270. Although I sometimes have to round off the minutes of the hearing in 15-minute segments for assessment purposes, in the case at bar I will use strictly the formula laid down in item 22 of Tariff B, applying the actual time of 1 hour, 21 minutes.
[10] In item 24 of the bill of costs the respondent claimed the sum of $500 for travel by counsel. In her written submissions in reply Ms. Lavergne was prepared to reduce this amount to $100. At the same time, the appellant based her objection on the phrase "at the discretion of the Court" contained in item 24, which she submitted did not extend to the assessment officer where no specific directions to that effect had been given. The appellant is correct: only judges have the discretionary authority to compensate counsel for travel.
[11] The appellant challenged the six units submitted for preparation for the bill of costs. She maintained that as the respondent had claimed the maximum units for the various items in column III, her conduct was vexatious and in the absence of explanations this required the appellant to challenge each of the items in order to set the record straight.
[12] In reply the respondent noted that there was no reason not to assess her bill of costs, which was authorized by the Court's judgment, and moreover she was entitled to the compensation mentioned in item 26. She agreed to reduce her claim from six to four units.
[13] I agree with Ms. Lavergne's position and note that in general it is not unusual for a party who is having costs assessed to apply for the maximum units mentioned in Tariff B. The opposing party will also be entitled in reply to object either to the number of units or the items claimed. Consequently I will award four units for item 26.
[14] Under disbursements the respondent claimed $57 for photocopying her memorandum of fact and law and $210 for the book of authorities. Ms. Lavergne alleged that although there was a single memorandum for both cases the Court required her to file 10 copies in addition to two copies for the parties. She maintained that the Court's order limiting the assessment of costs in a single case does not limit the respondent's right to have her disbursements assessed in each of the two cases, as in her submission the order relates only to assessable services, not to disbursements.
[15] I do not agree with this. In my opinion, the Court's order limiting the assessment of costs to a single case has the effect of abolishing that party's right to claim all costs in the other case, whether for fees or for disbursements.
[16] The provisions of Rules 345(b) and 346(5) require that five copies be filed for the Court; in addition, there must be two other copies for the parties. Consequently, I will award the amounts suggested by the appellant for photocopying expenses, namely $36 for the memorandum and $132.75 for the books of authorities.
[17] Finally, service and taxi costs will be awarded in the amount of $55.90.
[18] The respondent's costs will therefore be assessed and allowed in the amounts of `$1,270 for fees and $224.65 for disbursements. A certificate will be issued in the amount of $1,494.65.
|
(signed) François Pilon Assessment Officer |
Halifax, Nova Scotia
December 29, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: A-157-98
BETWEEN:
HÉLÈNE BEAULIEU
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
- and -
GEORGE THOMSON
- and -
YVON TARTE, ADJUDICATOR,
PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS BOARD
Mis-en-cause
ASSESSMENT BY WRITTEN REPRESENTATION WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
REASONS BY: François Pilon, Assessment Officer
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF REASONS: December 29, 2000
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Hélène Beaulieu for the appellant
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario