Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Date: 20050823

Docket: A-107-03

Citation: 2005 FCA 278

Between:

STEPHEN M. BYER

Appellant

AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS BREASONS

MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]                The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed on February 12, 2004, the appeal from the decision of the Federal Court which granted respondent=s motion for summary judgment in docket IMM-10101-03. On May 3, 2005, respondent filed its bills of costs and asked that they be assessed without the personal appearance of the parties.    As requested, I issued timetables for the written submissions.

[2]                To begin with, it must be established that I have the authority to assess costs resulting from these files. This objection was raised by the appellant.

[3]                Rules 2 and 405 of the Federal Courts Rules provide that costs be assessed by an assessment officer. By order of the court dated June 17, 1993, I have been designated taxing officer and, pursuant to Rules 501 and 502, my appointment made prior to the coming into force of these Rules in 1998 is still valid. This being said, I am ready to proceed with the assessment of respondent=s costs based on the evidence and the materials submitted.

[4]                The first bill is with respect to costs incurred in docket A-107-03. Respondent=s fees are allowed in the amount of $1,020.    I have reduced the number of units under items 19 (5 units x $120/unit), 22 ($120 x 2 units/hour x 45 min.) and 26 (2 units x $120) since no explanation has been given to justify the maximum number of units provided for these services rendered under column III of Tariff B. Given that the value of the unit was readjusted by the Chief Justice on April 1^st, 2005 pursuant to subsection 4(1) of the Tariff, and that respondent filed its bill of costs after that date, I have made the adjustment in calculating the amount of the fees.

[5]                No unit is awarded under item 21 since the order of December 9, 2003 allowing appellant=s motion for an extension of time to serve and file a requisition for hearing, does not mention costs resulting from that motion. Item 24 is disallowed as the judgment of February 12, 2004 is silent on that point. The disbursements incurred for bailiff fees are allowed in the amount of $169.49 as they are proven by affidavit.

[6]                The second bill filed by the Crown arises from the judgment of the Federal Court. For the same reasons, the fees are allowed as follows in the amount of $980: items 5 (5 units x $120/unit), 6 ($120 x 2 units/hour x 35 min.) and 26 (2 units x $120/unit). Except for the sum of $15, the disbursements in the amount of $109.80 are allowed as claimed, since this expense should be considered as an operating expense.

[7]                In view of the preceding, the costs of respondent at the Federal Court of Appeal are assessed in the amount of $1,189.49 and at the Federal Court in the amount of $1,089.80. A certificate will be issued in each file. A copy of these reasons will be placed in docket IMM-10101-03.

DATED AT MONTREAL THIS 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2005.

Signed: *Michelle Lamy+

MICHELLE LAMY ASSESSMENT OFFICER