Société canadienne d'exportation de bisons Inc. v. Canada

Société canadienne d'exportation de bisons Inc. v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-10-18 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 396 File numbers A-264-00 Decision Content Date: 20021018 Docket: A-264-00 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 396 BETWEEN: SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE D'EXPORTATION DE BISONS INC. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE CANADA THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF JUSTICE THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS FRANÇOIS PILON Assessment Officer [1] This action was dismissed with costs on December 18, 2002. On August 23, 2002, Dominique Guimond, counsel for the Department of Justice, filed the respondents' bill of costs and asked that it be assessed without a personal appearance by the parties. On September 20, 2002, Luc Huppé, counsel for the appellant, filed his written submissions against the bill of costs. [2] Mr. Huppé asked that the bill of costs be dismissed for the following three reasons: (a) the respondents' bill was not consistent with the Tariff, since it indicated no breakdown for the monies claimed and provided no documentation or explanation in support of the claim; (b) the affidavit accompanying the bill was signed by an articling student, who did not take any part in the case and who therefore had no adequate personal knowledge of the content of the claim; and (c) the total amount claimed was in no way reasonable, being contrary to the clearly established rule in the Tariff. [3] To begin with, Mr. Guimond did not have to give further particulars of the amounts claimed in items 19 and 22(a) of Tariff B, as those items reflected each stage of the procedure in the case, resulting in recovery of costs under assessable services. A party who has his costs assessed is entitled to do this without providing further particulars. At the assessment the assessment officer decides on the legality of each item claimed, depending on whether it is consistent with the provisions of Tariffs A and B. At the same time, I agree with Mr. Huppé's argument that documentation may be required in the event that a party has to justify certain costs. We will return to this below. [4] As to the second objection, it seems quite acceptable to me for an articling student to become familiar with a case at the time the bill of costs is prepared. In my opinion, it will be sufficient to have a good knowledge of all aspects of Tariff B as they apply to the various stages of the proceeding in a particular case. The fact that an articling student has not earlier participated in the hearing of the case does not in any way diminish the validity of his or her affidavit in support of the bill of costs. [5] Finally, Mr. Huppé argued that the total amount claimed was not reasonable and contravened the clearly established rule in the Tariff. I do not agree with this allegation, because it is general in scope. With respect, I note that counsel was free to submit arguments in opposition to specific items in the bill of costs if he objected to the number of units requested by the respondents, with reference to the factors listed in paragraph 3 of Rule 400. However, that was not the case. In the circumstances, I will not reduce the amount sought for the assessable services, since each item is consistent with column III of Tariff B. [6] As to item 26, for assessment of costs, I will reduce this claim from 6 to 3 units, since the assessment took place without a personal appearance by counsel. Disbursements [7] The respondents submitted the sum of $614.25 for photocopies at $0.25 a page. Here I will rule in favour of Mr. Huppé, who had earlier objected to the absence of documentation. I do not doubt that these photocopies were made and that they were probably necessary for the conduct of the action: the documents included in the Court record appear to establish this. However, what we need is evidence of the actual cost of this disbursement. The affidavit in support of the bill of costs is defective in this regard: it does not mention the photocopying costs. Further, we do not know whether these were incurred in counsel's office or at the premises of an independent supplier. I wondered how this expense was incurred and paid. The evidence does not provide an answer. In these circumstances, I must disallow this claim. [8] The sum of $7.49 is allowed for costs of service. The respondents' bill of costs is assessed and allowed in the amount of $1,882.99. "François Pilon" Assessment Officer Halifax, Nova Scotia October 18, 2002 Certified true translation Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD COURT FILE No.: A-264-00 BETWEEN: SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE D'EXPORTATION DE BISONS INC. Appellant -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ET AL. Respondents ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE REASONS BY: François Pilon, Assessment Officer PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Halifax, Nova Scotia DATE OF REASONS: October 18, 2002 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: de Grandpré, Chaurette, Lévesque for the appellant Montréal, Quebec Morris Rosenberg for the respondents Deputy Attorney General of Canada