Desrochers v. Bombardier Inc.

Desrochers v. Bombardier Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-07-19
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 807
File numbers
T-390-98
Decision Content
Date: 20010719
Docket: T-390-98
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 807
Between:
PIERRE DESROCHERS and
NOVATECH FABRICATION INC. and
KIMPEX ACTION INC.
Plaintiffs
AND
BOMBARDIER INC.
Defendant
BOMBARDIER INC.
Plaintiff by counterclaim
AND
PIERRE DESROCHERS and
NOVATECH FABRICATION INC. and
KIMPEX ACTION INC.
Defendants by counterclaim
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1] On February 1, 2001, the Court issued an order enjoining the plaintiffs to explain within twenty (20) days the reasons for their failure to comply with the schedule set out in the order of August 26, 1999, and to justify why this case should not be dismissed by reason of delay. On March 2, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion made personally by the plaintiff Pierre Desrochers. The purpose of this motion was to obtain an extension of thirty (30) days to the deadline previously granted in the order of February 1, 2001. Following written representations filed by the defendant, the Court on March 23, 2001 ordered the dismissal of the action by reason of delay, the whole with costs.
[2] This assessment was held on July 5, 2001 in the presence of the plaintiff Pierre Desrochers and Mr. Pascal Lauzon, counsel for the defendant. It should be noted that the plaintiffs Novatech Fabrication Inc. and Kimpex Action Inc. were also served in the notice of appointment issued under Rule 406 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[3] Mr. Desrochers did not submit any representation in opposition to this bill of costs other than to argue his lack of understanding of this quasi-judicial proceeding. I explained to the plaintiff that my role is to determine the amount of the costs once the Court has awarded the costs to a party. It was when the action was dismissed that the plaintiff should have expressed his disagreement by appealing the Court's decision. At this point it is too late, unfortunately.
[4] The following fees are requested by the defendant in its bill of costs:
Item
Assessable Service
Number of Units / Column III
2
Preparation and filing of defences and counterclaim
7
5
Preparation and filing of defendant's record on motion for particulars (motion 1)
7
5
Preparation and filing of record in reply to the plaintiffs' motion for particulars (motion 2)
7
6
Hearing on motion for particulars (motion 1)
3 x 1 hour
6
Hearing on motion for particulars (motion 2)
3 x 2 hours
7
Affidavit of documents
5
8
Preparation for an examination / P. Desrochers
5
8
Preparation for an examination / J.-Y. Leblanc
5
9
Examination / P. Desrochers
3 x 5.5 hours
9
Examination / J.-Y. Leblanc
3 x 5 hours
26
Preparation and presentation of bill of costs
6
[5] Mr. Pascal Lauzon submitted that the defendant is asking the maximum of the units provided in Tariff B based on the following criteria in subsection 400(3) of the Federal Court Rules: the amount of work and the conduct of the plaintiff, which tended to unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the proceeding. In view of these representations and the proceedings in the case, all of the fees requested other than those under items 6 and 26 are allowed as such in the total amount of $9,774.25, i.e. $8,497.50 plus taxes. Since the appearance of October 26, 1998 was for 30 minutes, an amount of $165.00 is allowed (3 units x $110/unit x 30 minutes) for this service. According to the record, the hearing of March 15, 1999 lasted 1.75 hours; an amount of $577.50 is therefore allowed (3 units x $110/unit x 1.75 hours). Given that the bill of costs as such is not disputed, I allow 3 units under item 26 of the tariff.
[6] As to the costs for transcripts ($1,012.27) , couriers ($20.00), photocopies ($600.77) and bailiffs ($165.56) incurred by the defendant in this matter, they too are allowed.
[7] The costs of the defendant are assessed and allowed in the amount of $11,572.85. A certificate shall issue for that amount.
MICHELLE LAMY
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
July 19, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20010719
Docket: T-390-98
BETWEEN:
PIERRE DESROCHERS and
NOVATECH FABRICATION INC. and
KIMPEX ACTION INC.
Plaintiffs
AND
BOMBARDIER INC.
Defendant
BOMBARDIER INC.
Plaintiff by counterclaim
AND
PIERRE DESROCHERS and
NOVATECH FABRICATION INC. and
KIMPEX ACTION INC.
Defendants by counterclaim
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: T-390-98
STYLE:
Between:
PIERRE DESROCHERS and
NOVATECH FABRICATION INC. and
KIMPEX ACTION INC.
Plaintiffs
AND
BOMBARDIER INC.
Defendant
BOMBARDIER INC.
Plaintiff by counterclaim
AND
PIERRE DESROCHERS and
NOVATECH FABRICATION INC. and
KIMPEX ACTION INC.
Defendants by counterclaim
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF ASSESSMENT: July 5, 2001
REASONS OF MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATED: July 19, 2001
APPEARANCES: Pierre Desrochers, for the plaintiff
Pascal Lauzon, for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Smart & Biggar
Montréal, Quebec for the defendant