Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Piccott

Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Piccott
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2003-02-24
Neutral citation
2003 FCT 217
File numbers
GST-5104-01
Decision Content
Date: 20030224
Docket: GST-5104-01
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 217
IN THE MATTER OF THE EXCISE TAX ACT, R.S.C.,1985, c. E-15
-and-
IN THE MATTER OF AN ASSESSMENT OR ASSESSMENTS BY THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE UNDER THE EXCISE TAX ACT, AGAINST:
JAMES ANDREW PICCOTT
(sometimes carrying on business as PICCOTT AUTO SALES)
33 Imogene Crescent,
Paradise, Newfoundland
A1L 1H4
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Willa Doyle, Assessment Officer
[1] This is the assessment of the Bill of Costs submitted on behalf of the respondent following an Order of the Court dated October 25, 2002 allowing costs on a party-party basis. The motion was heard on October 17, 2002 in St. John's in conjunction with a similar motion in ITA-12574-01.
[2] On January 15, 2003 the appointment for assessment of costs was set to be heard by telephone conference on January 27, 2003 at 9:30am (AT).
[3] At the hearing of the assessment the respondent was represented by Olga Mc William and the applicant by John Ashley with Greg Mac Intosh and Ingrid Abbott in attendance.
[4] Item #1. Ms. Mc William stated that she had requested the highest number of units in column III because she felt the matter was very complex. She also stated that the October 16, 2002 matter was further to a September 27, 2002 motion that she had requested to be in writing and to which Mr. Mac Intosh had filed an appearance. Mr. Ashley said the motion filed by Ms. Mc William was incomplete and in an attempt to expedite the matter Mr. Mac Intosh brought the second motion. Mr. Ashley is of the opinion that Ms. Mc William should not be claiming anything in relation to the September 27, 2002 matters.
[5] Ms. Mc William stated there were two matters involving a substantial amount of time in reviewing the records, researching and responding to the memorandum thereby justifying the units requested. The September 27, 2002 hearing , heard in conjunction with ITA-12574-01, lasted 33 minutes and resulted in an Order of the Court setting out a timetable. The September 27, 2002 Order was silent as to costs therefore, only the October 16, 2002 motion can be considered. 5 units will be allowed for item #1.
[6] Mr. Ashley raised Item # 5 in the bill of costs on ITA-12574-01. I will deal with this item in the assessment on ITA-12574-01 file as there are two Orders for costs, one on each file.
[7] Item # 13. Ms. Mc William supported her decision to ask the highest number of units in column III by stating that it involved the discovery of Mr. Hatfield; Mr. Ashley said cross-examination in the rules, as he understood them, is rolled into the preparation for a motion and did not merit a claim. I also understand that to be correct. Item # 13 is disallowed.
[8] Item # 6. Mr Ashley disagreed with the units requested remarking that item # 6 is based on hours and there were two bills of cost and it took less than two hours to hear both motions. The tariff states appearance on a motion, per hour. Subsequent verification of the abstract of hearing substantiated that the motions were heard at the same time and that the duration in Court was 1 hour 37 minutes. 1 hour at a value of 2 units will be allowed for this item on each bill of costs. Also on item #6 Mr. Ashley stated correctly that 2nd counsel fees cannot be claimed except where the court allows them. Item # 6 for 2nd counsel is denied.
[9] Item # 26 . Mr Ashley stated that the requested value of 4 units is high and this was not a complex assessment. I agree and allow 2 units.
[10] Mr. Ashley does not dispute disbursements. Disbursements as presented, and for the most part substantiated by receipts, are allowed.
[11] The bill of costs is assessed and allowed in the amount of $ 990.00 for assessable services and $938.18 for disbursements. A certificate shall be issued for the amount of $1,928.18.
< < Willa Doyle > >
Assessment Officer
Fredericton, New Brunswick
February 24, 2003
FEDERAL COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: GST-5104-01
STYLE OF CAUSE:
IN THE MATTER OF THE EXCISE TAX ACT, R.S.C.,1985, c. E-15
-and-
IN THE MATTER OF AN ASSESSMENT OR ASSESSMENTS BY THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE UNDER THE EXCISE TAX ACT, AGAINST:
JAMES ANDREW PICCOTT
(sometimes carrying on business as PICCOTT AUTO SALES)
33 Imogene Crescent,
Paradise, Newfoundland
A1L 1H4
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS BY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador
DATE OF ASSESSMENT: January 27, 2003
REASONS BY: Willa Doyle, Assessment Officer
DATE OF REASONS: February 24, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: John Ashley for the applicant
Olga Mc William for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General FOR THE APPLICANT
of Canada ( Ottawa)
Olga Mc William
Heywood.Kennedy.Belbin
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador FOR THE RESPONDENT