Savard v. Canada
- Citation
- 2005 FC 312
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 2 March 2005
- Posture
- Civil Liability / Assessment of Costs
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 2 March 2005
- Posture
- Civil Liability / Assessment of Costs
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Units claimed under specific Tariff B items were reduced where no justification was provided; item 27 denied as the Tariff does not provide for preparing the hearing record; disbursements supported by affidavit were allowed; applying s.400(3) and Tariff B yields fees of $4,561.34 and disbursements of $630.39, total $5,191.73.
Court disposition
Defendant's costs assessed and allowed in the amount of $5,191.73.
Orders
- Fees awarded to defendant: $4,561.34
- Disbursements awarded to defendant: $630.39
- Claim for item 27 (preparing the hearing record) denied
02
Material facts
Parties
JEAN-GUY SAVARD
PlaintiffHER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant Counsel: John SimsAmounts and remedies
- Fees Awarded: CAD 4,561.34
- Disbursements Awarded: CAD 630.39
- Total Costs Awarded: CAD 5,191.73
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Liability / Assessment of Costs
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether claimed number of units under Tariff B items was justified
- 02
Whether item 27 (preparing hearing record) is compensable under the Tariff
- 03
Whether claimed disbursements were reasonable and supported
- 04
Whether multiple counsel justify separate compensation for the same tariff items
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant sought allowance of claimed legal fees under specified Tariff B items and disbursements totalling $630.39, relying on recorded time and affidavit evidence for disbursements.
- Respondent
- The plaintiff challenged the maximum number of units claimed under multiple Tariff B items, argued lack of justification for those units and contended that Tariff items are not multiplied for multiple counsel; also contested compensation for preparing the hearing record (item 27).
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Federal Court Rules, subsection 400(3)
Assessment governed by the criteria in subsection 400(3) of the Federal Court Rules.
- 02
Tariff B (Federal Court Rules) / Assessment officer interpretation
Tariff B items are intended to be partial compensation for services specified; absent an order, each item compensates the service regardless of number of counsel.
- 03
Assessment practice under Federal Court Rules
Compensation for services not enumerated in the Tariff is rarely awarded.
- 04
Federal Court practice and affidavit evidence in record
Disbursements must be necessary and supported by affidavit or evidence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Units claimed under specific Tariff B items were reduced where no justification was provided; item 27 denied as the Tariff does not provide for preparing the hearing record; disbursements supported by affidavit were allowed; applying s.400(3) and Tariff B yields fees of $4,561.34 and disbursements of $630.39, total $5,191.73.
Obiter and limits
- The financial means of a party are irrelevant to the quantum determination at assessment stage.
- If Parliament intended to compensate a service it would have created a Tariff item for it.
- The Tariff is partial compensation and not a full indemnity.
Court disposition
Defendant's costs assessed and allowed in the amount of $5,191.73.
- Fees awarded to defendant: $4,561.34
- Disbursements awarded to defendant: $630.39
- Claim for item 27 (preparing the hearing record) denied
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 2 March 2005
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.
Federal Court
Judgment· 2 March 2005
Savard v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2005-03-02 Neutral citation 2005 FC 312 File numbers T-59-01 Decision Content Date: 20050302 Docket: T-59-01 Citation: 2005 FC 312 Between: JEAN-GUY SAVARD Plaintiff and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This action was dismissed on May 29, 2003, with costs against the defendant. At her request, the assessment proceeded on the basis of written submissions by the parties. [2] After reviewing the proceedings in the record and the submissions by the parties, the defendant's fees are awarded in the amount of $4,561.34 for the following reasons. [3] The number of units claimed under the following items was reduced: items 2 (6 units), 7 (4 units), 10 (5 units), 11 (2 units x 1h32min), 12 (2 units), 13(a) (4 units), 14(a) (2 units x 3h12min) and 26 (3 units). The defendant made no submission justifying the maximum number of units provided under column III of Tariff B for these services. Taking into account the criteria set out in subsection 400(3) of the Federal Court Rules, it seems that this action in civil liability was not in general very complex although the workload appears to have been considerable. In response to the plaintiff's argument, I should like to note that unless the Court so orders each item of the Tariff is intended to compensate for counsel's fees for services rendered regardless of the number of counsel who took part in performing each service. [4] For the preparation of written submissions in October (1.5 pages) and December (2 pages) 2001 in response to motions by
the plaintiff, I allow 4 units for each of the claims made under item 5. Compared to the other services, the workload for these items seems lighter. [5] The claim made under item 27 for preparing the hearing record is denied. Compensation under that item for services not provided for in the Tariff is very rarely awarded: for example, the filing of written submissions pursuant to rule 382 against a status review notice. Several items of the present Tariff are related to services rendered prior to the hearing. If Parliament had intended to compensate for this service, there would be an item to that effect. We must keep in mind that the Tariff is intended to be partial compensation for fees incurred by a party in a case. [6] The disbursements for photocopying and service expenses, totalling $630.39, are awarded as claimed. These expenses, evidence of which was established by affidavit, were necessary to the proper conduct of the case. [7] Finally, the fact that a party has the financial means to pay costs is not relevant at this stage of the proceedings. The Court has ordered that the costs be paid by the plaintiff, and my role as assessment officer is to determine the amount. Consequently, the defendant's costs are assessed and allowed in the amount of $5,191.73. (signed) Michelle Lamy
MICHELLE LAMY
ASSESSMENT OFFICER Certified true translation K. A. Harvey
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-59-01 Between: JEAN-GUY SAVARD Plaintiff and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec REASONS OF: MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER DATED: March 2, 2005 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John Sims For the defendant Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario
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.