Date: 20000613
Docket: A-316-94
BETWEEN:
CAISSE POPULAIRE DAVELUYVILLE
(ARO (1984) INC.)
Appellant
AND
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
JOHANNE PARENT, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1] The hearing of this assessment was held by conference call on May 31, 2000. Mr. Archambault represented the respondent, accompanied by Mr. Ladouceur, and Mr. Lafleur, the appellant.
[2] The assessment of the respondent's bill of costs follows the judgment of the Court (Décary, Létourneau and Chevalier JJ.A.) rendered on October 29, 1998 dismissing the appeal with costs.
[3] Under the criteria set out in rules 409 and 400(3) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 and the evidence in the record, the amounts claimed under Tariff B are broken down as follows.
[4] The amounts claimed in items 19, 22a and 25 are allowed as requested.
[5] At the request of the respondent during the hearing, the number of units claimed in item 26 is reduced to 3 and is allowed accordingly.
[6] As to disbursements, the Goods and Services Tax of 7% is calculated on the total of the assessable services and is therefore reduced accordingly to $98.00. For the miscellaneous disbursements (faxes, photocopies, couriers and long-distance calls), there is no uncontested evidence in the record that the costs thereby claimed were actually incurred. Consequently, and for the reasons previously cited in Hunter Eagle Bell v. Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (A-806-95), no amount will be allowed for the disbursements under this head. The printing costs are allowed as requested. The travel costs ($207.25) of counsel for the respondent, incurred in order to attend the hearing of October 27, 1998 in Montréal, are allowed as requested. Mr. Lafleur's objection on this point is that these costs could have been avoided by the respondent if a solicitor from their Montréal office had been mandated. However, I subscribe to the respondent's thesis instead. Indeed, the travel costs would certainly have been less expensive if the services of a Montréal lawyer had been used. However, the case both at trial and on appeal had been dealt with by the counsel in the Ottawa office, and it would certainly have been more expensive to consider the time needed for another lawyer to familiarize himself with this case before a hearing on the merits.
[7] The bill of costs is allowed in the amount of $1,755.63. A certificate shall issue for that amount.
(Johanne Parent)
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
June 13, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20000613
Docket: A-316-94
Between:
CAISSE POPULAIRE DAVELUYVILLE
(ARO (1984) INC.)
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE NO: A-316-94
BETWEEN:
CAISSE POPULAIRE DAVELUYVILLE
(ARO (1984) INC.)
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF ASSESSMENT: May 31, 2000
REASONS OF J. PARENT, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATE OF REASONS: June 13, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Francis Archambault for the respondent
Dominique Lafleur for the appellant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Heenan, Blaikie
Montréal, Quebec for the appellant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario for the respondent