Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                                                                                                               Date: 20040308

 

                                                                Docket: T-500-03

 

                                                                                                                    Citation: 2004 FC 351

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE

PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION

AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT,

2000, c. 5

 

Between:

 

                                                            ROBERT LAVIGNE

 

                                                                                                                                          Applicant

 

                                                                           and

 

                                      CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS

 

                                                                                                                                     Respondent

 

                                         ASSESSMENT OF COSTS REASONS

 

 

MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

[1]                           Pursuant to the judgment dated August 12, 2003, awarding costs to the respondent, this assessment proceeded without personal appearance by the parties.

 

[2]                           In light of the parties’ submissions, it seems reasonable to me to award the amount of $1,796.67 to the respondent for the services rendered under items 5 (6 units), 6 (2 units/hour X 40 minutes), 8 (4 units), 9 (2 units) and 26 (3 units). The fees requested under item 2 are denied because there was no record filed within the meaning of rule 310 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. The same can be said for item 24: the order dated August 12, 2003, is silent in this respect. I have reduced the number of units requested for the assessment of costs since it was not a very complex matter.


 

[3]                           The costs incurred in this matter for stenographer fees ($374.98) and costs of service ($27.79) are awarded. The respondent was entitled to cross-examine the applicant on his affidavit, as provided in  rule 308.

 

[4]                           The respondent’s bill of costs is assessed in the amount of $2,199.44. A certificate is issued for this amount.

 

 

 

                                                                                                 Signed: “Michelle Lamy”          MICHELLE LAMY

                                                                                             ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

 

March 8, 2004

 

Certified true translation

 

 

Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB


                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                                                                             

                                                     SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

DOCKET:                                                                                       T-500-03

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE

PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION

AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT,

2000, c. 5

 

Between:

 

                                                            ROBERT LAVIGNE

 

                                                                                                                                          Applicant

 

                                                                           and

 

                                      CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS

 

                                                                                                                                     Respondent

 

 

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE

 

PLACE OF ASSESSMENT:                                                Montréal, Quebec

 

REASONS OF MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

DATE OF REASONS:                                                              March 8, 2004

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Morency, Philion, Leblanc, Beaudry

Montréal, Quebec                                                             FOR THE RESPONDENT

 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.