Date: 20020124
Docket: 2000-2732-IT-I
BETWEEN:
ERICA GAMUS,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasonsfor Taxation
Tanasychuk B., T.O., T.C.C.
[1] This taxation came on for hearing on October 22, 2001 by means of a telephone conference call. It follows a Judgment of the Honourable Judge Bowman, Associate Chief Judge, dated May 11, 2001, in which he allowed the appeals made under the Income Tax Act, with costs, if any, in accordance with the Tariff under the Informal Procedure Rules. Mr. Abraham Gamus represented the Appellant and Ms. Meghan Castle, represented the Respondent.
[2] The Bill of Costs submitted by the Appellant is as follows:
This is my bill of costs in the above appeal.
Copies 450 pp @ 0.08 $ 36.00
Parking 6.00
Postage 9.84
Preparation of notice of appeal 150.00
Preparation for hearing 200.00
Conduct of hearing 600.00
Taxation of costs 50.00
TOTAL $1,051.84
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. GAMUS:
[3] The claim for photocopies totalling $36.00 represents the cost of reproducing documents, which were filed as Exhibits at hearing, copies of which were also provided to counsel for the Respondent. Mr. Gamus stated that he and his wife drove to Court on the morning of the hearing and incurred a $6.00 parking charge. The cost for two people to travel to and from the Court by way of public transit would have exceeded the $6.00 being claimed for parking. Two Canada Post receipts were produced, each in the amount of $4.92, for registered letters sent to the Tax Court of Canada at Toronto. Receipts for the photocopies and parking were misplaced and not produced.
[4] Mr. Gamus made lengthy representations concerning the claim for counsel fees. He was requested to and provided a copy of those submissions to counsel for the Respondent and myself, at the conclusion of the telephone conference call.
[5] In summary, Mr. Gamus, who is not a lawyer, represented the Appellant, his wife, throughout this proceeding. Mr. Gamus stated that allowing only lawyers to recover counsel fees under Rule 11 is discriminatory. It is his opinion that since the Rules permit a lay person to represent an Appellant, they should also be entitled to recover fees for representing the Appellant. Reference was made to jurisprudence from the Ontario Courts, which he stated stood for the proposition that he is entitled to recover counsel fees.
SUBMISSIONS BY MS. CASTLE:
[6] With respect to disbursements, Ms. Castle stated that, according to her recollection, there were not an extensive number of exhibits filed at hearing. As such, the claim for 450 copies appeared excessive and suggested that the number of copies produced would not have exceeded 25 pages. She also noted that no receipt for the copies was produced.
[7] Ms. Castle stated that no receipts for the parking and postage were produced to substantiate this claim. However, receipts totalling $9.84 for postage were subsequently produced. In summary, Ms. Castle stated that Rule 12(3) permits the allowance of disbursements if they are essential for the conduct of the appeal and if it is established that they were made or that the party is liable for them. It is her position that Mr. Gamus has not proven that the disbursements were essential for the conduct of the appeal, and in the absence of receipts, she is not satisfied that they were made or that Mr. Gamus is liable for them.
[8] Ms. Castle stated that Mr. Gamus is not entitled to recover counsel fees, as he does not fall within the definition of "counsel" in Section 2 of the Rules. In support of this position she referred to Munro v. R. (1998) D.T.C. 6443 (Fed C.A.) and Kew v. The Queen [2001] T.C.J. No. 116 (QL).
DECISION:
[9] I agree with the submissions of Ms. Castle. "Counsel" is defined as a person who may practise as a barrister, advocate, attorney or solicitor in any of the provinces. As Mr. Gamus is not a lawyer, he is not entitled to recover counsel fees. I will accordingly tax off the full amount claimed for counsel fees of $1,000.00.
[10] With respect to the disbursements, I will allow the sum of $9.84 for postage.
[11] As there was no receipt produced to support the claim of $6.00 for parking, and in the absence of agreement of counsel for the Respondent, I will not allow it. The sum of $6.00 is taxed off.
[12] With respect to the $36.00 claim for photocopies, while the amount claimed per page is modest, no corroborating receipt was produced. A review of the Tax Court of Canada Minutes disclosed that the Appellant filed fourteen exhibits at trial, most of which consisted of multiple pages. In the case of El-Hennawy v. Canada, [2001] T.C.J. No. 358 (QL), The Honourable Judge Sarchuk reviewed a decision of a Taxing Officer, in which a claim for photocopies was disallowed. In the review, His Honour referred to the Minutes maintained at hearing, which indicated that the Appellant had filed books of documents and authorities at hearing. As such, he found it was not reasonable to have taxed off the photocopying charges and ordered that the Certificate of Costs be amended to allow the photocopy charges.
[13] I am satisfied that numerous copies were made which were essential for the conduct of the appeal. It is not reasonable to disallow the claim for the photocopies, given the fact that the Minutes disclosed that numerous documents were filed at hearing. As such, I will allow the full amount claimed of $36.00.
[14] The Bill of Costs of the Appellant in the amount of $1,051.84 is taxed and $45.84 is allowed. A certificate will be issued.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 24th day of January 2002.
"B.G. Tanasychuk"
Taxing Officer