Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Engstrom v. Peters First Nation

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Applicants are entitled to costs due to success and respondent bad faith, but the solicitor-client scale and the quantum claimed were disproportionate to the one-day proceeding and the issues involved; a lump sum award reflecting proportionality is appropriate, specifically $35,000 plus $4,000 in disbursements (total $39,000).

Court disposition

Respondents shall pay costs to the Applicants in the total amount of $39,000.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay Applicants costs in the total amount of $39,000.
  • Award broken down as a lump sum of $35,000 for costs plus $4,000 for disbursements.

02

Material facts

Parties

Brandon Lee Engstrom

Applicant Counsel: Karey M. Brooks

Amber Rachel Ragan

Applicant Counsel: Karey M. Brooks

Peters First Nation Band Council

Respondent Counsel: Stan H. Ashcroft

Norma Webb (in her capacity as Chief of Peters First Nation)

Respondent Counsel: Stan H. Ashcroft

David Peters (in his capacity as Councillor of Peters First Nation)

Respondent Counsel: Stan H. Ashcroft

Victoria Peters (in her capacity as Councillor of Peters First Nation)

Respondent Counsel: Stan H. Ashcroft

Amounts and remedies

  • Claimed Solicitor Client Fees (applicants): CAD 125,661.9
  • Claimed Disbursements (applicants): CAD 4,969.94
  • Previous Solicitor Client Fees (first Application, Approximate): CAD 100,000
  • Awarded Lump Sum Costs: CAD 35,000
  • Awarded Disbursements: CAD 4,000
  • Total Costs Awarded: CAD 39,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Judicial Review Membership Decision / Costs Determination (supplementary Judgment)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicants argued they were successful and entitled to solicitor-client costs of $125,661.90 plus disbursements of $4,969.94; noted prior solicitor-client fees exceeding $100,000 in the first successful application and cited respondents' bad faith and refusal to follow the Membership Code appeal process.
Respondent
Respondents opposed the claimed solicitor-client costs and the quantum sought, effectively arguing costs should follow the Federal Courts Tariff and be governed by proportionality given the one-day hearing and substantially similar issues to the earlier proceeding.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Federal Courts jurisprudence / Federal Courts Tariff

    Successful party is generally entitled to costs; misconduct or bad faith can justify departure from tariff and increase in costs

  2. 02

    Federal Courts jurisprudence

    Assessment of costs must respect proportionality between work claimed and the issues/complexity of the matter

  3. 03

    Federal Courts Tariff and case law

    Solicitor-client costs are reserved for cases of misconduct, bad faith or other exceptional circumstances

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Applicants are entitled to costs due to success and respondent bad faith, but the solicitor-client scale and the quantum claimed were disproportionate to the one-day proceeding and the issues involved; a lump sum award reflecting proportionality is appropriate, specifically $35,000 plus $4,000 in disbursements (total $39,000).

Obiter and limits

  • Much of the claimed work should have been performed by associate counsel rather than senior counsel.
  • Preparation of originating documents should not have required 34 hours at senior counsel rate.
  • Affidavit preparation and hearing preparation times claimed at senior counsel rates were excessive given the straightforward issues.
  • Counsel may spend as much time as they choose prosecuting a case but the costs assessed must be reasonable and proportional.

Court disposition

Respondents shall pay costs to the Applicants in the total amount of $39,000.

  • Respondents to pay Applicants costs in the total amount of $39,000.
  • Award broken down as a lump sum of $35,000 for costs plus $4,000 for disbursements.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 19 March 2020

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 19 March 2020

2020 FC 394

Engstrom v. Peters First Nation Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-03-19 Neutral citation 2020 FC 394 File numbers T-1710-18 Decision Content Date: 20200319 Docket: T-1710-18 Citation: 2020 FC 394 Ottawa, Ontario, March 19, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes BETWEEN:

BRANDON LEE ENGSTROM AND AMBER RACHEL RAGAN Applicants and PETERS FIRST NATION BAND COUNCIL, NORMA WEBB IN HER CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF PETERS FIRST NATION, DAVID PETERS IN HIS CAPACITY AS COUNCILLOR OF PETERS FIRST NATION AND VICTORIA PETERS

IN HER CAPACITY AS

COUNCILLOR OF PETERS FIRST NATION Respondents

SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] In my Judgment and Reasons issued on February 21, 2020 allowing this application, I left on reserve the issue of costs. I invited the parties to submit their arguments in writing and they have done so. [2] The Applicants were successful and they are entitled to costs. This was their second successful application brought against the Respondents challenging a denial of their applications for membership in the Peters First Nation. On the first application, Justice Simon Fothergill awarded costs under the Federal Courts Tariff at the high end of Column III. [3] I agree with counsel for the Applicants that a higher award of costs is justified in this proceeding. The Respondents acted in bad faith in denying memberships to the Applicants on spurious grounds. To make matter worse, after Justice Fothergill found the first decision to be a nullity, the Respondents refused to submit the second decision to an appeal before the members of the Band as stipulated in the Membership Code. [4] The Applicants seek costs at a solicitor-client level in the asserted amount of $125,661.90 plus disbursements of $4,969.94. This is in addition to the solicitor-client fees of more than $100,000 that were incurred in the first application before Justice Fothergill (see affidavit #2 of Amber Ragan at para 18). [5] I have examined the Bill of Costs submitted on behalf

of the Applicants. Inasmuch as this was a one-day application dealing with substantially the same issues that were raised before Justice Fothergill, legal fees well in excess of $100,000 are grossly disproportionate. Neither the evidence nor the legal issues raised were complex. Furthermore, much of the work is claimed at the senior counsel rate of $465 per hour. The task of preparing originating documents should not have taken 34 hours nor should that work have been performed by senior counsel. This same is true for the affidavits that were prepared, supposedly taking 43 hours for senior counsel and 8.2 hours for associate counsel. All of this work should have been done either by associate counsel or at the associate counsel rate. [6] I have similar reservations about the amount of time that was incurred in the preparations for cross-examinations and for the hearing by senior counsel at 94 hours (plus another 26 hours by associate counsel). When the Court is asked to assess costs, the principle of proportionality applies. Counsel is free to spend as much time as they want in the prosecution of a client’s cause but not necessarily at the expense of the client or the opposing party. This matter cannot reasonably bear fees in the amount advanced on behalf of the Applicants or any amount close to that figure. [7] In these circumstances, a lump sum award of $35,000 plus $4,000 for disbursements is all that can be justified. JUDGMENT in T-1710-18 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the Respondents shall pay costs to the Applicants in the total amount of $39,000. "R.L. Barnes" Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-1710-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: BRANDON LEE ENGSTROM AND AMBER RACHEL RAGAN v PETERS FIRST NATION BAND COUNCIL AND OTHERS SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT AND REASONS: BARNES J. DATED: March 19, 2020 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Karey M. Brooks For The Applicants Stan H. Ashcroft For The Respondents SOLICITORS OF RECORD: JFK Law Corporation Vancouver, British Columbia For The Applicants Ashcroft & Company West Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondents

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Decision of Justice Simon Fothergill (earlier successful application)

Case cited

Federal Courts Rules, Rule 369

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Courts Tariff

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.