Pinsonnault-Flinn v. Nova Scotia (Environment and Labour)

Pinsonnault-Flinn v. Nova Scotia (Environment and Labour) Court Supreme Court Date 2004-11-26 Citation 2004 NSSC 240 Docket 212837(A) Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Edwards, Frank C. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Pinsonnault‑Flinn v. Nova Scotia (Environment and Labour), 2004 NSSC 240 Date: 20041126 Docket: 212837(A) Registry: Halifax IN THE MATTER OF Chapter 1 of the statutes of Nova Scotia 1994-95, the Environment Act - and - IN THE MATTER OF an Order issued pursuant to the provisions of the said Act to Julie Marie Pinsonnault-Flinn of 1601-1607 Cambridge Street, Halifax, in the County of Halifax Regional Municipality, Province of Nova Scotia Between: Julie Marie Pinsonnault‑Flinn Appellant v. The Minister of Environment and Labour for the Province of Nova Scotia Respondent Decision on Costs Judge: The Honourable Justice Frank Edwards Heard: September 16, 2004, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Final Written Submissions: November 4, 2004 Counsel: Stephen Kingston and Kevin Gibson, for the appellant Stephen T. McGrath, for the respondent By the Court: [1] This is further to my decision of October 20, 2004, wherein I awarded the Appellant solicitor client costs to be taxed by me. Having found the Ministerial Order to have been patently unreasonable, I felt that the Appellant should not be put to any expense for costs. [2] While the intent of solicitor client costs is to provide complete indemnification, the claims for services must be directly related to the appeal. As well, a party ordered to pay is entitled to advance the same complaints or concerns that a client of the lawyer could have raised on a taxation. Accordingly, the Respondent is entitled to question the “reasonableness” of the charges. With these principles in mind, I have reviewed the accounts presented to me. [3] Dealings with Insurance Company: I agree with the Respondent that significant blocks of recorded time relate to issues between Ms. Pinsonnault‑Flinn and her insurer, and have nothing to do with the appeal. On the same token, significant research was undertaken on the issue of the insurer’s duty to defend. These blocks of services respectively cost $2,300.00, $2,500.00 and $1,800.00 for a total of $6,600.00. I am therefore deducting $6,600.00 from Appellant’s Counsel’s account. [4] Work Done by Merrick / Holm / MGI: The Respondent objects on the basis that this work was done in response to the insurer’s denial of liability. However, as the Appellant points out, the results of the MGI testing was evidence in the Appeal (Record, Tab 27). It was referred to by both Counsel and considered by myself. I will therefore allow the MGI charge ($1,665.43) but disallow the Merrick Holm account of $1,611.67. [5] Stay: Appellant’s Counsel billed a total of $5,700.00 ($4,300.00 + $1,400.00) for preparation for an application to stay the Ministerial Order. Such an application would have been necessary if the Minister had sought to enforce the Order by charging the Appellant with failure to comply. The Minister refused to agree to refrain from enforcement of the Order pending the hearing of the Appeal. Clearly, the preparation was occasioned by the Appeal and is therefore reasonable. I am concerned however that $5,700.00 is excessive. I would allow $3,000.00 and therefore reduce the Appellant’s account by $2,700.00 under this head. [6] Charges of Individual Timekeepers: (a) Harry E. Wrathall, Q.C.: The Respondent objects that Mr. Wrathall’s role (approximately one half of his time on the file) appears to be largely managing his client by participating in office meetings with her. The Respondent also objects to Mr. Wrathall’s charges for straightforward tasks such as drafting the Notice of Appeal. Mr. Wrathall’s charges total $5,300.00. To some extent I agree with the Respondent’s objections and therefore reduce Mr. Wrathall’s charges by $1,300.00. (b) Stephen J. Kingston: Mr. Kingston charged a total of $6,415.50 on the file. Part of his role was mentoring Mr. Gibson, a very able but relatively junior Counsel. Mr. Kingston attended the September hearing but did not take part. He charged $869.50 for his attendance, dictating a letter to Aviva and “work on file”. I agree with the Respondent that mentoring activities are properly a cost to the law firm of developing its own people. I would deduct $2,000.00 from Mr. Kingston’s charges. (c) Kevin Gibson: Mr. Gibson billed a total just over $21,000.00. While his work was exemplary, I agree with the Respondent that Mr. Gibson’s 130 hours on the file do appear somewhat excessive. Part of that time has to be chalked up to his gaining experience in a specific field of law. But the fact situation was complex and demanded significant time. I would deduct $3,000.00 from his charges. [7] Disbursements: Quicklaw charges are overhead. I deduct $390.00. Photocopy charges appear excessive. I deduct $500.00. [8] Summary of Deductions from McInnes Cooper Account: 1. Dealings with Insurance Company $6,600.00 2. Preparation for Stay $2,700.00 3. Harry E. Wrathall, Q.C. $1,300.00 4. Stephen J. Kingston $2,000.00 5. Kevin Gibson $3,000.00 6. Disbursements ($390.00 + $500.00) $ 890.00 Total $16,490.00 [9] The original bill of $35,663.50 is reduced by $16,490.00 to $19,173.50 plus applicable HST. With respect to the Merrick Holm account, I am allowing only the MGI charge of $1,665.43. Order accordingly. J.