Date: 19990106
Docket: DES-2-98
BETWEEN:
THE HONOURABLE VAL MEREDITH
Applicant
- and -
FRANK PRATT and
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Gregory M. Smith,
Assessment Officer
[1] By Order dated October 5, 1998, a motion of the respondent, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (hereinafter CSIS), seeking to disallow the applicant from cross-examining the respondent's affiant was denied inter alia with costs payable forthwith. The applicant has now filed a Bill of Costs claiming $5,264.00 for fees and disbursements and has requested the assessment on the basis of written representations, without the personal appearance of the parties.
[2] The applicant claims the maximum number of units allowable under Tariff B, column III, for each of the services set out in its Bill. Counsel for CSIS opposes applicant's claim for the maximum of units, arguing that the motion was not complex.
[3] I have reviewed the record as it appeared before the Court at the time of the respondent's motion. While I agree that maximum units are not warranted, I nevertheless do not find this motion to have been especially simple. As applicant's counsel points out, the Motion Record contained 256 pages, including a Memorandum of Fact and Law which was 44 paragraphs in length. Respondent's Book of Authorities contained 13 cases and consisted of 300 pages. The hearing took almost 5 hours.
[4] Respondent's counsel also refutes applicant's argument that the respondent's motion was unnecessary. I am inclined here to agree with the respondent not only on based counsel's submissions on this point but also because any view the Judge hearing the motion may have held about the motion's exigence is conspicuous by its absence.
[5] Having regard then to the circumstances of this motion, as well as the criteria set out in Rule 400 and the absence of any particular instruction from the Court under Rules 400 or 403 that might suggest the respondent's motion was unnecessary, I will assess 6 units for the preparation and filing of "responses" to the respondent's motion (i.e. Memorandum of Fact and Law) under item 5 of the Tariff.
[6] The claim of 7 units for preparation and filing of the contested motion is refused because it was the respondent who prepared the motion, not the applicant.
[7] Applicant also claims 5 hours for appearance on the motion for each of two counsel, times 3 units. In the absence of any exercise of the Court's discretion authorizing me to assess the services of second counsel, I will reduce this claim to 5 hours for one counsel only and will allow 2 units.
[8] The maximum of 6 units is also claimed under item 26 for this assessment. This will be reduced to 3 units, again having regard to the criteria set out in Rule 400 and the nature and circumstances of this particular assessment.
[9] The disbursement of $15.00 for couriers is uncontested and will be allowed. The claim of $249.00 for photocopies, however, is opposed by the respondent on the basis of a decision of this Court in Diversified Products Corp. v. Tye-Sil Corp. is, 34 C.P.R. (3d) 267 (FCTD 1990).
[10] Although the current provisions of Tariff B to the Federal Court Rules, 1998 with respect to the assessment of disbursements have changed considerably from those in effect at the time of this Court's decision in the Diversified Products case, the criterion of "reasonableness" nonetheless remains. I note as well that a new requirement that the disbursement be "established by affidavit or by the solicitor appearing on the assessment that the disbursement was made or is payable by the party" has been added.
[11] In this case, I am unable to determine from the material submitted by the applicant whether the sum of $249.00 was derived from photocopies made within the law firm itself (i.e. in-house) or paid out of pocket to a vendor. The applicant has also not established that the amount claimed for photocopies, in whatever volume of copies might have been made, was reasonable or, for that matter, that this was even a "disbursement" payable by the party. The claim for $249.00 will therefore be refused.
[12] Accordingly, the applicant's Bill of Costs will be assessed in the amounts of $1,900.00 for fees and $15.00 for disbursements. A Certificate of Assessment will issue in the total amount of $1,915.00.
(Sgd.) "Gregory M. Smith"
Assessment Officer
Dated at OTTAWA, Ontario, this 6th day of January, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: DES-2-98
BETWEEN: THE HONOURABLE VAL MEREDITH
Applicant
- and -
FRANK PRATT and
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS BY GREGORY M. SMITH, ASSESSMENT OFFICER, dated January 6, 1999
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
APPEARANCES:
Peter B. Bean for Applicant
No one appearing for the Respondent, Frank Pratt
Linda J. Wall for the Respondent, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
LANG MICHENER
Ottawa, Ontario for Applicant
TIERNEY STAUFFER
Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondent, Frank Pratt
Morris Rosenberg
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondent, Canadian Security Intelligence Service