Date: 20000619
Docket: A-87-97
BETWEEN:
PIERRE BENGE
Appellant
AND
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPEAL BOARD
Respondent
TAXATION OF COSTS -- REASONS
JOHANNE PARENT, TAXING OFFICER
[1] The instant case concerns the taxation of the respondent's bill of costs pursuant to the Court's judgment on March 12, 1998, per Pratte, Denault and Desjardins JJ.A., dismissing the appeal with costs.
[2] Annick Pelletier represented the respondent together with Mr. Ladouceur; Mr. Genge represented himself.
[3] In accordance with the criteria set out in Rules 400(3) and 409 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) and the evidence in the record, the services and disbursements to be taxed will be divided as follows. The amounts claimed for the services mentioned under items 19, 22(a) and 25 are awarded as requested.
[4] The amount claimed under item 21(a) for counsel's fees, for written representations against a motion, was withdrawn by the respondent at the hearing.
[5] The amount claimed under item 26 for assessment of costs was reduced to three units in view of the fact that the assessment was not complex and there was no justification in support of the request for 4 units.
[6] The goods and services tax is reduced to $138.25 in view of the changes made to the services taxed. The various disbursements claimed for photocopies, faxes, message services and long-distance calls were reduced by the respondent at the hearing from $261 to $100. Despite that offer, I will not award any amount under this item. As there was no clear proof of the necessity for the said services or documentary support thereof I consider that these various disbursements are general office expenses.
[7] The disbursements requested for bailiff's fees for services on November 28, 1997, March 17, 1998 and May 18, 2000 are awarded. The costs claimed for the latter service were added to the bill of costs by the respondent at the hearing without dispute.
[8] I wish to return here to the arguments made by Mr. Benge at the taxation. Mr. Benge asked to be excused from the costs which he thought were fair but which he was not in a position
to pay. On the first point, the Court (per Pratte, Denault and Desjardins JJ.A.) had already dismissed a motion by the appellant to be excused costs on April 24, 1998. The matter was therefore res judicata here. Finally, in response to an argument regarding repayment problems, I would simply refer to the judgment of Gibson J. in Nike Canada et al v. Jane Doe and John Doe et al. (T-2027-97): "In an award of costs, neither the ability to pay nor the difficulty of collection should be a deciding factor".
[9] The bill of costs is taxed in the amount of $2,278.47 and a certificate issued for that amount.
| (Signed) JOHANNE PARENT TAXING OFFICER |
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
June 19, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
| FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION Date: 20000619 Docket: A-87-97 Between: PIERRE BENGE Appellant - and - PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPEAL BOARD Respondent TAXATION OF COSTS -- REASONS |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT FILE No.: A-87-97 |
BETWEEN:
PIERRE BENGE
Appellant
AND
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPEAL BOARD
Respondent
| PLACE OF TAXATION: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF TAXATION: June 1, 2000 |
| REASONS BY: J. PARENT, TAXING OFFICER |
| DATE OF REASONS: June 19, 2000 |
| APPEARANCES: Annick Pelletier for the respondent |
Pierre Benge for the appellant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Pierre Benge for the appellant |
Ottawa, Ontario
| Morris Rosenberg for the respondent |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
| Brouillette, Charpentier, Fournier for the respondent |
Montréal, Quebec