Date: 19980929
Docket: T-1093-97
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1998
PRESENT: McKEOWN J.
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Plaintiff,
- and -
EDUARDS PODINS
Defendant.
ORDER AND REASONS THEREFOR
On September 8, 1998, I granted an adjournment to the defendant for reasons set out on September 9, 1998. The question of costs was adjourned to September 24, 1998.
Under Rule 400, I exercise my discretion and award costs for the motion under Tariff B, Column IV, in the matters covered under B Motions numbers 5 and 6, at Units 9 and 4 respectively, together with further costs on a solicitor and client basis, to be determined by the assessment officer in accordance with the following directions.
The adjournment was due to the failure of the plaintiff to provide a full affidavit of documents by December 19, 1997. At least 1,000 new documents were produced after the commission evidence was completed in Latvia and one week prior to the reconvening of the hearing in accordance with the scheduling order. The plaintiff submits that she was complying with Rule 226 for continuing disclosure. However, there are documents which were available at the time the application was made. I am satisfied that the delay in the matter before me was due to the failure of the plaintiff to produce the documents as contemplated by the scheduling order. The defendant could not possibly review the documents and prepare for cross-examination at the same time. As was stated by Strayer J. in Bhatnager v. M.E.I., [1985] 2 FC 315,
| [c]osts should not be ordered on a solicitor-client basis except in very clear cases where the party against whom they are ordered has caused substantial and unnecessary difficulty or expense for the other party. |
This is what happened in the matter before me. The defendant should recover its costs for cross-referencing the new documents with the documents already produced. This could have been done in a more efficient manner, chronologically, if the new documents had been made available with the old ones.
The defendant should also recover costs for a portion of the preparation time which was wasted due to the adjournment of the hearing. It is only that portion which must be repeated prior to the reconvening of the hearing which should be awarded.
William P. McKeown
JUDGE