Kalevar v. Liberal Party of Canada

Kalevar v. Liberal Party of Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-04-29 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 196 File numbers A-721-01 Decision Content Date: 20030429 Docket: A-721-01 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 196 BETWEEN: CHAITANYA K. KALEVAR Appellant - and - LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA and MR. J. BHADURIA Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS B. PRESTON ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] By way of order dated June 11, 2002, the Court granted the motion on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada (the Respondent) with costs and Appellant's appeal was dismissed. [2] On October 21, 2002, the Respondent filed a draft Bill of Costs. On November 12, 2002, a letter was sent to both parties indicating that this matter appeared to be appropriate for disposition by way of written submission. Both parties have filed their submissions, therefore, I will turn my attention to the assessment of the costs in this matter. Assessment [3] The Appellant, filed written submissions respecting costs on January 9, 2003. Mr Kalevar relies on the same submissions as were filed in the Trial Division (T-472-00). I am starting with these as the vast majority of these submissions are not germane to the issue before me. The Appellant submits that the Liberal Party of Canada is a non-legal entity and makes submissions concerning its status before the Court. As alluded to by the Appellant in paragraph 31 of his submissions, the status of the Liberal Party of Canada is beyond my jurisdiction as an assessment officer therefore, as mentioned earlier, this portion of the Appellant's submission is not relevant. [4] At paragraph 18, the Appellant submits: A junior counsel being paid $225.00 an hour that is almost 30 times the minimum wage. Please consider this as the single most important factor that makes justice inaccessible and unaffordable for most Canadians. I cannot imagine any factor thathas alienated Canadians from the Administration of justice than the high wage rates of lawyers. [5] Without addressing the merits of this submission, I concluded that this submission, although related to costs, is not relevant. As stated by the Respondent: The Respondent has limited its claim for costs to amounts permitted in accordance with Column III of the Table to Tariff B of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. [6] This approach is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 407 which states: Unless the Court orders otherwise, party and party costs shall be assessed in accordance with Column III of the Table to Tariff B. [7] Given that the Respondent has utilized Column III to calculate assessable services, the hourly rate charged by the law firm for the services of a junior counsel is not relevant to the issue before me. [8] In light of the foregoing, except in circumstances where the Respondent is not legally entitled to costs, I am ready to assess the costs in favour of the Respondent. [9] The order of the Court rendered June 11, 2002 states: The motion of the Liberal Party of Canada is granted with costs and the appeal is dismissed. [10] The wording of the order is clear in that it states the motion is granted with costs. The Court makes no mention of costs of the appeal in the second portion of the sentence. The Court has clearly awarded costs as they relate to the motion, however, costs have not been awarded for the dismissal of the substantive appeal. Further to this, having reviewed the relief sought in the Notice of Motion dated May 16, 2002, it is clear that the Respondent did not seek an award of costs for the appeal. [11] Pursuant to Rule 400(1), the Court, not an assessment officer, has full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs, therefore, in assessing costs, those costs relating to the motion will be allowed and those relating to the appeal will not be allowed. [12] Having regard to fees, with the exception of those fees claimed for preparation of the Appeal Book and Memorandum of Fact and Law (items 18 and 19 respectively), the Respondent's fees are allowed as requested. The fees respecting items 18 and 19 are not allowed as they relate to the substantive appeal, not the motion to dismiss. Therefore, the fees presented at $1,650.00 plus GST are allowed at $770.00 plus GST. [13] Concerning disbursements, having reviewed the file and the affidavit of disbursements of Craig A. Parkinson, the disbursements for process services presented at $379.63 are allowed. [14] Having regard to photocopies, The Respondent presented disbursements at $243.75, however, in the Affidavit of Craig A. Parkinson, photocopying disbursements are presented at $398.75. I am prepared to allow the higher amount due to the fact that, as was the situation in the Trial Division assessment, the calculation in the Bill of Costs was based on 3 copies of each document, not 5 as required by Rules 364(1) and 365(1). [15] In conclusion, the Bill of Costs presented by the Respondent at $2,388.88 is assessed and allowed at $1,602.28. A certificate of assessment will be issued for this amount. "Bruce Preston" Bruce Preston Assessment Officer Toronto, Ontario April 29, 2003 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-721-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: CHAITANYA K. KALEVAR Appellant - and - LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA and MR. J. BHADURIA Respondents ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS BY: BRUCE PRESTON DATED: TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Toronto, Ontario For the Respondent The Liberal Party of Canada FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Date: 20030429 Docket: A-721-01 BETWEEN: CHAITANYA K. KALEVAR Appellant - and - LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA and MR. J. BHADURIA Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS