Ingham v. West Hants (Municipality)

Ingham v. West Hants (Municipality) Court Supreme Court Date 2005-11-08 Citation 2005 NSSC 323 Docket SH 248614 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Robertson, M. Heather (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Ingham v. West Hants (Muncipality), 2005 NSSC 323 Date: 20051108 Docket: SH 248614 Registry: Halifax Between: Patricia Ingham Appellant v. Municipality of the District of West Hants and Harold G S Adams Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice M. Heather Robertson Heard: November 8, 2005, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: November 8, 2005 Written Decision: November 24, 2005 Counsel: Patricia Ingham and Melissa Ingham Glenn, on their own behalf, for the appellant Derrick J. Kimball, for the respondent Robertson, J.: (Orally) [1] Fine, I am ready to make a decision in this matter. I did want the opportunity to take a little break to gather my thoughts and to review various decisions on taxation. As well, I took five minutes and made an inquiry with respect to the Dial-A-Law issue because I wanted to be as informed about that as I could be. Dial-A-Law use to be an arm of Public Legal Education. It is now a function of Legal Information Society Nova Scotia. Dial-A-Law is a system where one calls and makes an inquiry about any of 90 areas of law and then a call is returned to you and you can listen to certain tapes on the subject matter. An alive voice is achieved by dialing the legal information line and then you can speak to a real person. So that clears up the matter of who Dial-A-Law is. [2] Now, with respect to my decision on this matter, the adjudicator Mr. Thompson reviewed these costs and found them to be reasonable with the exception of the fact that he curtailed the photocopying expense by a third as he felt that four volumes prepared for the parties and the court would be appropriate and not six. So, he thought those two additional volumes were unnecessary and I agree with him in that matter. I think four volumes of materials is appropriate. [3] Now, as to the costs there are in fact various decisions that have been granted over time by this court with respect to costs and these decisions all vary. They sometimes reflect 15 cents or 25 cents per page and indeed there have been decisions where amounts for photocopying are greater than that. In the circumstances, I find Mr. Thompson used his discretion and found that 25 cents per page in a reasonable amount. I am not about to interfere with that discretion. I too think that 25 cents per page is a reasonable amount particularly in the circumstances where the amount of pages have been reduced fully by a third. So, I would let that amount stand for photocopying charges. [4] With respect to the other matters, I think that these charges are also reasonable. The matter of the court reporting at 50 cents a page is an acceptable amount and a very normal type of discovery cost that would be incurred in these kinds of proceedings. I am not going to address the issue of whether the court reporter was certified or not. I understand from Mr. Kimball there is litigation by you against the court reporter on this issue in that respect and he has represented to the court that the woman was a certified court reporter. [5] With respect to travel, I do not find that to be out of the ordinary either. I am not going to make any comment about whether two cars travelled to the Law Courts or not. There were a number of people in attendance. I would agree that had Mr. Adams’ attendance at court been simply here because he was a party and had to give evidence on one day one might look more closely at his travel expense. Indeed he is the solicitor for the Municipality. He had particular knowledge of the file and really had to be of assistance to Mr. Kimball in the conduct of the proceeding and it seems reasonable to me that he would attend court on both days and that his travel expenses would be paid for. I also note that Mr. Kimball says his own travel alone was in access of 700 kilometers and that the bill is not in any way excessive for the amount of travelling done from Windsor to Halifax over a 2-day period by he and Mr. Adams. [6] So, in the result I am not going to disturb the bill of costs relating to these disbursements as determined by Mr. Thompson. In my discretion I accept that this bill is appropriate and should stand. It will only be amended to the extent that the calculation of HST would slightly reduce the amount of the bill of costs by $187.26. So the bill of costs will now stand at $3576.71. Thank you. Justice M. Heather Robertson