Paradis v. Canada (Attorney General)

Paradis v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-02-11
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 64
File numbers
A-645-00
Decision Content
Date: 20040211
Docket: A-645-00
Citation: 2004 FCA 64
Between:
MARIO PARADIS
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
RICHARD LARABIE, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1] On August 13, 2003, the respondent's counsel filed a bill of costs for assessment pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on February 10, 2003, dismissing the application for judicial review with costs.
[2] The applicant objected to an assessment on the basis of written submissions, so an appointment was issued scheduling a hearing for January 29, 2004, at 9:30 a.m.
[3] At the hearing, Mr. Mounes Ayadi represented the respondent and the applicant Mr. Mario Paradis, feeling he was unable to argue his submissions in opposition to the bill, asked that his associate, Mr. Robert Lendick, do so on his behalf. Since Mr. Ayadi had no substantial objections to this, Mr. Lendick was allowed to make submissions on behalf of Mr. Paradis.
[4] When I asked whether there was consent on certain claims set out in the bill of costs, Mr. Lendick replied that he agreed with those made under items 13, 14 and 25, but that he objected to the request under item 2. As to the claim under item 26, he said it was hard to challenge it since they were all present at the assessment.
[5] Concerning the disbursements, Mr. Lendick advised that he was contesting only the bill of $380.59 for photocopies and that he had some doubts about the claim for costs of transcript.
[6] Mr. Lendick first addressed the claim for $380.59 for photocopies. He said he considered that a claim for six copies of the file was unreasonable and exaggerated; that the name of the CCRA department appeared on the invoice and that he did not understand how the Department of Revenue could bill the Department of Justice for photocopies of documents that everyone had in their possession; that the Department was asking $637.72 for a transcript so why claim $380.59; and finally that the proceeding was originally informal, that it was not necessary to present all these documents in the Court of Appeal and that it was not necessary either to provide the full text of the decisions. He also repeated his argument that he also had some doubts about the claim for $637.72 for the transcript.
[7] Mr. Ayadi replied that the six copies were necessary because the rule is that the record be filed in the Court in five copies and that one more was required for service. He also explained why the name of the CCRA department appeared on the supporting document as client-department, that the record was consistent with the Court rules, that he did not need to review it page by page, and that the Court had not considered it superfluous because it had awarded costs.
[8] I questioned Mr. Ayadi in order to find out what method of calculation had been used to arrive at the sum of $380.59 and his reply was that he did not know exactly but he knew that 320 originals had been used and that the amount came to approximately $63.00 for each of the copies.
[9] I have no problem allowing the request for $380.59 for the photocopies since it is reasonable. So that the applicant understands, he should examine rule 310(1)(b)(ii), which stipulates that a respondent shall, within 20 days... serve and file his record in five copies. So the six copies were necessary. Moreover, the same rule lists what this record must contain, so the documents were also necessary.
[10] The claim for $637.72 representing the costs for a partial transcript of the hearing in the Tax Court of Canada is also allowed, since the same rule 310 allows it in paragraph (2)(d).
[11] In regard to the claim for $550.00 made under item 2 for the preparation of the respondent's record, that too is allowed. I listened closely to Mr. Lendick's comments on the matter and I am not going to repeat them here, for it is clear that the respondent's record filed in five copies in the Court file on February 21, 2002, necessitated some preparation and the respondent is entitled to claim the costs thereof.
[12] The request for $440.00 under item 26 is allowed.
[13] The respondent's costs are assessed and allowed as requested in the amount of $1,870.00 for fees and $1,120.57 for disbursements. A certificate shall issue for the amount of $2,990.57.
"Richard Larabie"
Assessment Officer
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
February 11, 2004
Certified true translation
Suzanne Gauthier, C.Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-645-00
Between:
MARIO PARADIS
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec
REASONS OF RICHARD LARABIE, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATE OF REASONS: February 11, 2004
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario for the respondent