Jean Patou Inc. v. Luxo Laboratories Ltd.

Jean Patou Inc. v. Luxo Laboratories Ltd. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-12-20 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 397 File numbers A-54-99 Decision Content Date: 20011220 Docket: A-54-99 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 397 In the matter of Sections 57 and 58 of the Trade-marks Act AND IN THE MATTER of an Appeal from the judgment rendered December 30, 1998 in the Canadian Federal Court, Trial Division, by the Honourable Allan Lutfy in the case identified as T-713-97 BETWEEN: JEAN PATOU INC. Appellant - and - LUXO LABORATORIES LIMITED Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS J. PARENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] On January 23, 2001, the Court (Desjardins J., Décary J. and Létourneau J.) delivered a judgment dismissing this appeal with costs. [2] The Respondent's bill of costs was filed on June 11, 2001. The assessment of costs on this file was dealt with in writing. Both parties having now filed their representations, I will proceed with the assessment. [3] In its bill of costs, the Respondent requests the maximum number of units for the preparation and filing of Respondent's contested motion for security for costs. After reviewing the file, the Court order of January 10,2000, the motion records and Reply, I allow 5 units as this motion was not of a complex nature. [4] For the preparation for hearing, again counsel for the Respondent, asks for the maximum number of units. As mentioned in my reasons for assessment in the Trial matter (T-713-97), the relative complexity of this file prevents me from allowing the number of units asked for. Therefore, 4 units are allowed under item 13(a). [5] In the same vein, Item 19 will be allowed at 6 units and item 22(a), at 2 units per hour in Court. [6] Counsel for the Respondent asks for 5 units under item 24 for travel by counsel to attend hearing (from Toronto to Ottawa). Although I reviewed the Court file thoroughly, nowhere did I find that the Court used its discretion in awarding costs to counsel to travel to attend Court hearings. Therefore, those 5 units will be taxed off the Respondent's bill of costs. [7] Item 25 is allowed as claimed. [8] Item 26 is allowed at 4 units considering material submitted by counsel. DISBURSEMENTS [9] The amounts claimed as disbursements on the items listed below were not contested, are considered reasonable, and will therefore be allowed as claimed: Photocopies $97.57 Agency Charges $91.60 $242.72 Telephone Charges $9.73 Facsimile Charges $54.25 Courier Charges $49.33 Travel Charges $689.00 Travel: TTC $4.00 Computer Charges $17.40 [10] On hotel accommodations, ground travel and meal expenses re: hearing in Ottawa, counsel for the Appellant submits in response to the Respondent's bill of costs: "The invoice provided by the Respondent for its counsel's stay in the Delta Hotel in Ottawa includes charges for room service ($18.90) and mini-bar services ($10.18) which the Appellant submits should not be included in any costs granted to the Respondent". [11] Counsel for the Appellant also maintains in his submissions regarding the meal expenses that some invoices attached to the Respondent's affidavit in support of the bill of costs are insufficiently detailed. [12] Disbursements should be normally supported by acceptable evidence. In the case at bar, it is reasonable to expect that counsel for the Respondent upon travelling to Ottawa needed to eat and I am satisfied that the room service charge along with the guest receipt of $26.89 were incurred towards that goal. However, I will not allow the mini-bar expenses nor the amount of $6.46 spent at the Airport as I am not convinced of their relevancy. [13] The translation charges of the Appellant's memorandum of fact and law from French to English are taxed off from the Respondent's bill of costs for the reasons I have given in the assessment of costs in the trial matter (T-713-97) referred to above. [14] The Federal Goods & Services Tax (GST) claimed by the Respondent is allowed for a total amount of $392.07. [15] Accordingly, a certificate will issue in the amount of $5993.10. "Johanne Parent" J. Parent Assessment Officer Toronto, Ontario December 20, 2001 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-54-99 STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN PATOU INC. Appellant - and - LUXO LABORATORIES LIMITED Respondent ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS BY: JOHANNE PARENT, Assessment Officer DATED: DECEMBER 20, 2001 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Philippe Leroux For the Applicant Kenneth D. McKay For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Brouillette Charpentier Fortin Lawyers, S.E.N.C. Patent & Trade Mark Agents 1100 René-Lévesque Blvd. West 25th Floor Montreal, Quebec H3B 5C9 For the Applicant SIM, HUGHES, ASHTON & MCKAY Barristers and Solicitors 6th Floor 330 University Ave. Toronto, Ontario M5G 1R7 For the Respondent FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Date: 20011220 Docket: A-54-99 BETWEEN: JEAN PATOU INC. Appellant - and - LUXO LABORATORIES LIMITED Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS