Doucet v. Canada (Attorney General)

Doucet v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-08-08 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 268 File numbers A-32-04 Decision Content Date: 20050808 Docket: A-32-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 268 BETWEEN: JACQUES DOUCET Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS WILLA DOYLE Assessment Officer [1] This application for judicial review of the decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice A. Gobeil, Umpire appointed under the Employment Insurance Act, was dismissed with costs to the respondent. [2] Ms. Stacey Gerrard, counsel for the respondent, filed a bill of costs and supporting affidavit of disbursements May 31, 2005 requesting disposition of the assessment to be without the personal appearance of the parties. [3] A timetable for written submissions and supporting materials was issued. Mr. Terrence P. Lenihan, counsel for the applicant, filed the applicant's submissions in opposition. Counsel for the respondent later confirmed no further representations in response to the applicant's written representations would be submitted in this claim. [4] Prior to beginning the assessment of the bill of costs, I draw counsel's attention to the March 28, 2005 memorandum from the Honourable Chief Justice Richard and the Honourable Chief Justice Lutfy in regard to the unit value of Federal Courts Rules Tariff B effective April 1, 2005. It is reproduced here for ease of reference: FROM: Chief Justice Richard Chief Justice Lutfy DATE: March 28, 2005 RE: Tariff B - Unit Value In accordance with Section 4 of Tariff B, we have caused the unit value of the Tariff to be calculated as follows: CPI (2004) = 125.4 x 100 = 122.10 CPI (1994) 102.7 The result of the calculation is greater than 120 but less than 130; therefore, the unit value of the Tariff effective April 1, 2005 will be 120. [5] Since the unit value of the tariff effective April 1, 2005 was established at 120, the amounts in the bill of costs will be adjusted accordingly from 110 per unit to 120 per unit. [6] I will now move to the bill of costs. The applicant remarks he is in agreement that an amount of time under items 2, 13(a) and 27 be allowed but states that the issue before the Court was very simple. The applicant also objects to item 24 and requests that the final amount of taxed costs and disbursements be greatly reduced from what is being claimed. [7] The respondent requests the following: six units for item 2 - preparation and filing of the respondent's record, four units for item 13(a) - preparation of hearing of judicial review application on February 28, 2005, two units for item 14(a) - counsel appearance in Court for hearing of judicial review application on February 28, 2005 (1.5hours), two units for item 24 - travel by counsel to attend hearing, one unit for item 26 - assessment of costs and two units for item 27- for review of applicants' notice of application, preparation and filing of respondent's notice of appearance and respondent's solicitor's certificates of service, client communication and file administration. [8] I will deal with items 2 and 13(a) together. Rule 400(3) lists 14 factors which the Court may wish to consider in exercising its discretion. I have considered these factors also and in my opinion, the issues raised were not complex so as to attract claims toward the higher end of the scale in Column III. Accordingly, item 2 is reduced to four units and item 13(a) is reduced to three units. [9] Item 14(a) is allowed at two units as requested. The extension will be adjusted to reflect the unit value of 120 effective April 1, 2005 as noted previously in paragraphs [4] and [5] of these reasons. [10] In relation to item 24 - the discretion to allow compensation for travel by counsel to attend a hearing is with the presiding judge, and not with the assessment officer. I reviewed the material in the Court record and it appears that no such direction exists in this matter. In the absence of the Court making such a direction, zero units must be allowed for this item. I reproduced here for ease of reference Federal Courts Rules Tariff B Item 24. 24. Travel by counsel to attend a trial, hearing, motion, examination or analogous procedure at the Direction of the Court. I direct counsel also to the reasons of Assessment Officer Pilon in Beaulieu v. Canada, [2000] F.C.J. 2127 at para. 10: "... In item 24 of the bill of costs the respondent claimed the sum of $500 for travel by counsel. In her written submissions in reply Ms. Lavergne was prepared to reduce this amount to $100. At the same time, the appellant based her objection on the phrase "at the discretion of the Court" contained in item 24, which she submitted did not extend to the assessment officer where no specific directions to that effect had been given. The appellant is correct: only judges have the discretionary authority to compensate counsel for travel." [11] In regard to item 26 the range for this item is two - six. The respondent is requesting one unit. Assessment officers do not have the authority to allow a number of units lower or higher than those provided for by the Federal Courts Rules. The lowest number of units on the Column III scale for item 26 is two. Two units will be allowed for this item. I reproduced here for ease of reference Federal Courts Rules 407. Rule 407: Assessment according to Tariff B - Unless the Court orders otherwise, party-and-party costs shall be assessed in accordance with column III of the table to Tariff B. [12] Item 27 - counsel is seeking two units. It is my respectful opinion, such items as listed in this instance under item 27 are a natural part of any litigation process normally performed by counsel. I believe item 27 is meant to indemnify counsel for extraordinary items not covered elsewhere in the Tariff. Zero units will be allowed for item 27. [13] Disbursements are awarded in the amount of $899.24 as they were established by Laura Wilson's affidavit and the attached exhibits. [14] The bill of costs presented at $2,879.24 is accordingly assessed and allowed in the amount of $ 2,219.24. A certificate is issued in the Federal Court of Appeal proceeding for $2,219.24. " W. Doyle" Assessment Officer Fredericton, New Brunswick August 8, 2005 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-32-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: Jacques Doucet -and- Attorney General of Canada ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS BY: W. Doyle DATED: August 8, 2005 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: T. Lenihan FOR THE APPLICANT S. Gerard FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lenihan, Byrne & Assoc. - Bathurst, NB FOR THE APPLICANT Department of Justice Canada- Halifax, NB FOR THE RESPONDENT