Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Montreal (City)

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Montreal (City) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2010-08-11 Neutral citation 2010 FCA 208 File numbers A-427-07 Decision Content Federal Court of Appeal CANADA Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20100811 Docket: A-427-07 Citation: 2010 FCA 208 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] BETWEEN: CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION Appellant and THE CITY OF MONTRÉAL Respondent and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Intervener ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] On September 19, 2008, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal with costs, the decision and order issued by the Federal Court were set aside, and the City of Montréal’s application for judicial review was dismissed. [2] On April 20, 2010, the appellant filed its bill of costs, which was supported by France Jean’s affidavit, and requested that the assessment proceed in writing. On May 31, 2010, a direction was sent to the parties, setting out a schedule for filing the parties’ written representations. The parties filed their written representations within the prescribed time. [3] In these written representations against the appellant’s bill of costs, the respondent claims there is no need to award any costs nor disbursements to the appellant because the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment entirely restores the findings of Martineau J., so this implicitly suggests that all the Federal Court of Appeal’s findings—including those on the costs—are set aside. [4] However, according to the appellant, the Supreme Court of Canada possesses very broad discretion concerning awarding costs, and if the Supreme Court of Canada had intended to set aside the costs awarded by the Federal Court of Appeal, it would have done so clearly. The appellant refers to section 47 of the Supreme Court Act, which stipulates that “The Court may, in its discretion, order the payment of the costs of the court appealed from, of the court of original jurisdiction, and of the appeal, or any part thereof, whether the judgment is affirmed, or is varied or reversed.” The appellant believes that it has the right to the costs claimed and it requests that the number of units requested be maintained given the significance and complexity of the matters in issue. [5] In this case, perhaps referring to the following judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Canada is in order: “The appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A-427-07, 2008 FCA 278, dated September 19, 2008, heard on December 16, 2009, is allowed with costs. All the conclusions of the judgment by Martineau J. of the Federal Court are restored. The matter is referred back to the respondent to recalculate the payments it makes in lieu of real property tax. The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs.” [6] Having read this judgment, I believe that the Supreme Court of Canada restored the judgment of the Federal Court, so the judgment from the Federal Court of Appeal is dismissed. If the Supreme Court of Canada had wanted to award costs in the Federal Court of Appeal, it would have mentioned this in its judgment. Since costs are not mentioned, the assessment officer has no jurisdiction, so this individual cannot award any costs nor disbursements as the respondent states in its written representations. [7] In accordance with the reasons set out at paragraph 5 above, the bill of costs submitted by the appellant on April 20, 2010, cannot be assessed. MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC AUGUST 11, 2010 “Diane Perrier” DIANE PERRIER ASSESSMENT OFFICER FEDERAL COURT NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-427-07 STYLE OF CAUSE: CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. THE CITY OF MONTRÉAL ET AL. WRITTEN ASSESSMENT OF COSTS PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec REASONS BY DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER DATED: August 11, 2010 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: Sylvie Gadoury FOR THE APPELLANT Luc Lamarre FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Legal Services Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPELLANT Brunet, Lamarre s.e.n.c. Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE INTERVENER