DATE: 19990610
Dossier: 97-3668-IT-I
ENTRE :
GILLES TREMBLAY,
appelant,
et
SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE,
intimée.
Motifs de taxation
R.P. Guenette, C.C.I.
[1] This taxation follows a judgment of the Honourable Judge Lamarre dated June 11th, 1998 allowing the Appellant's appeal with costs. The Appellant represented himself, and the Respondent was represented by Me Anne-Marie Desgens. The matter proceeded by telephone conference call on April 20, 1999.
[2] The Appellant's Bill of Costs includes various amounts for fees for the services of counsel in the amount of $1,300. The Bill of Costs is reproduced below:
MÉMOIRE DE FRAIS
(Procédure informelle) (Article 13)
Voici mon mémoire de frais pour l'appel susmentionné.
D. Autres débours :
a) la préparation de l'avis d'appel par l'appelant. 150.00$
b) la préparation de l'audience par l'appelant. 200.00$
c) l'audience. 300.00$
d) la taxation des dépens. 50.00$
e) la préparation des dossiers pour les procureurs généraux des 12 provinces et territoires du Canada en fonction de l'article 57 de la cour Fédéral. (préparation, copie, courrier; pour un dossier = 50,00$)
12 dossiers à 50.00$ 600.00$
__________
1,300.00$
[3] The Appellant submitted a receipt for one of the registered letters sent to each of the Attorneys General in the amount of $21.82. He noted that the amount of $50.00 claimed under item e) included the $21.82 for postage and the difference was for his effort in preparing and sending the letters.
[4] Counsel for the Respondent agreed to the $21.82 postage for each letter that was supported by receipts. The Appellant agreed at the taxation to provide counsel for the Respondent and the Court with copies of all the receipts for the registered letters sent. Counsel for the Respondent objected to the $28.18 difference and all the other amounts claimed for the services of counsel as the Appellant represented himself throughout the appeal process. She noted that under section 10 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (Informal Procedure) (hereinafter the "Rules") that fees are permitted only for the services of counsel, and that Mr. Tremblay was not a
"...person who may practise as a barrister, advocate, attorney or solicitor in any of the provinces;" as set out by (then) Associate Chief Judge Christie in Edgar v. Canada [1994] 1 C.T.C. 2562. She also referred me to Bernard Luc Charron v. The Queen [T.C.C. 96-4168(IT)I] in which the Taxing Officer denied fees for the services of counsel to a self-represented lawyer.
[5] Mr. Tremblay argued that the judge had awarded him his costs under section 18.26 of the Tax Court of Canada Act, and that he was as entitled to the fees claimed as a lawyer would be. He stated that everyone should be treated equally before the Court, that we are all equal in the eyes of the law as set out in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[6] Counsel for the Respondent did not agree that to deny the Appellant fees for the services of counsel would be in contravention of the Charter. She referred me to the case Lenhardt v. M.N.R. [T.C.C. 88-8(IT)I] of this Court where the same Charter issue was raised.
[7] This issue was dealt wth in Davidson v. Canada [1989] 2 F.C. 341 (F.C.A.) by the Honourable Mr. Justice Mahoney. In that case, the self-represented litigant was a lawyer. He reasoned as follows:
Section 15 of the Charter provides:
15.(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
This Court's basic approach to the interpretation of that section was stated in Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1987] 2 F.C. 359(C.A.), at page 368.
[Section 15] only proscribes discrimination amongst the members of categories which are themselves similar. Thus the issue, for each case, will be to know which categories are permissible in determining similarity of situation and which are not. It is only in those cases where the categories themselves are not permissible, where equals are not treated equally, that there will be a breach of equality rights.
The issue here is whether a barrister and solicitor who represents himself in litigation is most similar in the context of section 15 to a self-represented lay litigant or to a professionally represented litigant.
In my opinion, that barrister and solicitor is primarily a self-represented litigant and, for purposes of taxation of costs, is to be so treated. It seems to me patently more offensive to the concept of equality before the law to treat one self-represented litigant differently from another only because one is a barrister and solicitor than to treat two self-represented litigants the same even though one is a barrister and solicitor.
I would therefore direct that, in taxing his costs, here and in the Trial Division, the respondent is not entitled to costs under Tariff B, subsection 2(1).
[8] Based on the above, if a self-represented lawyer is not entitled to fees for the services of counsel, neither is the self-represented individual who is not a barrister and solicitor. He is being treated equally with respect to every other self-represented litigant. Therefore, I do not accept his argument that the Rules are in contravention of the Charter. That having been decided, as stated in Edgar, (supra), self-represented litigants are not entitled to claim fees for the services of counsel. I will tax off items a) through d) for a total of $700.00.
[9] I will allow only the amounts agreed to by counsel for the Respondent, namely $21.82 for each of the twelve letters sent to the Attorneys General of the provinces for a total of $261.84. A certificate in the amount of $261.84 will be issued.
" R.P. Guenette "
Registrar
Signé à Ottawa, Canada,
ce th jour de juin 1999.