Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                                                                                                                            Date: 20021218

                                                                                                                                       Docket: T-2032-98

Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 1313

BETWEEN:

TRANSPORT LAVOIE LTÉE

Plaintiff

and

CANADA POST CORPORATION

Defendant

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

DIANNE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]         On May 28, 2002, the Honourable Mr. Justice Nadon dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs.

[2]         On September 25, 2002, Mr. Jean-François Bienjonetti, counsel for the defendant, filed his bill of costs and asked that it be assessed without personal appearance of the parties.


[3]         A letter was sent to the parties setting out a timetable and the parties filed their written submissions as provided. I will now proceed with the assessment of the costs.

[4]         In this case, I must first assess the complexity of the file. Marcel Gervais, counsel for the plaintiff, states that the assessment officer should award only the minimum tariff under column 3 of tariff B. He also states that the defendant itself indicated in its written submissions that the facts of this case were "all in all, very simple". The trial lasted two days with three witnesses and one expert witness for the plaintiff and one expert witness for the defendant. The quantum claimed by the plaintiff was $144,009.00. In view of the foregoing, I consider the amounts requested by the defendant in its bill of costs to be reasonable. I therefore allow what was requested with the exception of item 11, in which I reduce the number of hours to 1.05 hours, which represents the duration of the hearing in this proceeding. The same applies to item 14(a), where I reduce the number of hours to 6 hours for the hearing of November 26, 2001, and to 5.5 hours for the hearing of November 27, 2001. The assessed costs are $9,438.95 ($8,206.90 + taxes).

[5]         The costs for the services by students-at-law, law clerks or paralegals in the amount of $4,418.50 cannot be allowed since all services were provided by lawyers and are assessed. However, when a service is provided, as it happens, by a student-at-law, it would be assessed at 50% of the amount that would be calculated for a solicitor.


[6]         The disbursements in relation to the costs of the presence of a reporter on April 7, 2000, the transcript of Mr. St-Jean's examination, the costs pertaining to the presence of the reporter on March 9, 1999, the transcript of Mr. Alain Larouche's examination, and the costs of service in relation to the various documents filed in the Court record are allowed since these are proved by invoices duly appended to the bill of costs. The amount of $11,978.96 claimed for the expert witness seems reasonable to me, given that under Tariff A 3(4), an amount may be established by contract. A party may pay the expert witness a greater amount for his or her services in preparing to give evidence and giving evidence.

[7]         The disbursements in relation to the copies, in the amount of $889.40, cannot be allowed as requested. There certainly were some expenses in this regard, but it is very hard to know whether the photocopies were made at the solicitor's office or at an independent supplier. Furthermore, the receipts appended to the written submissions in reply to the defendant appear to be accounts for fees sent to the client. Consequently, it is very hard to determine the number of photocopies that were made. In the circumstances, I think it is reasonable to allow 50% of the amount requested for photocopy costs. Similar considerations apply to the fax and long-distance call expenses.

[8]         The disbursements will therefore be allowed in the amount of $13,629.14.


[9]         The costs on a solicitor-and-client basis in the amount of $43,506.00 cannot be allowed since there was no order of the Court to that effect. On the one hand, Rule 407 states that unless the Court orders otherwise, party-and-party costs shall be assessed in accordance with column III of the table to Tariff B. On the other hand, the Court has ruled that the trial judge is the one who has full discretion to award costs on a solicitor-and-client basis, in AGC v. King (docket A-152-00).

[10]       In view of the foregoing, the defendant's costs are assessed and allowed in the amount of $23,068.09. A certificate shall issue in that amount.

"Diane Perrier"

line

Assessment Officer

Québec, Quebec

December 18, 2002

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION

Date: 20021218

                                                         Docket: T-2032-98

BETWEEN:

TRANSPORT LAVOIE LTÉE

Plaintiff

and

CANADA POST CORPORATION

Defendant

line

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

line


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET NO:                                T-2032-98

STYLE:                                             TRANSPORT LAVOIE LTÉE

and

CANADA POST CORPORATION

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE

PLACE OF ASSESSMENT:        Québec, Quebec

REASONS OF DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

DATED:                                        December 18, 2002

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Heenan, Blaikie, Aubut, Advocates                     for the plaintiff

Québec, Quebec

Brochet, Dussault, Larochelle                                            for the defendant

Sainte-Foy, Quebec

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.