Belmonté v. Longshoremen's Union CUPE Local 375

Belmonté v. Longshoremen's Union CUPE Local 375
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-07-23
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 266
File numbers
A-470-03
Decision Content
Date: 20040723
Docket: A-470-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 266
Between:
SYLVIO BELMONTE ET AL.
Applicants
and
LONGSHOREMEN'S UNION
CUPE LOCAL 375
AND
MARITIME EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -REASONS
MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1] After this application for judicial review was filed, the Longshoremen's Union CUPE Local 375 (the Union) filed on December 9, 2003, a motion to strike out alleging that the application had been filed late without leave. On February 18, 2004, the Court stayed the review of the file in order to give the applicants the opportunity to file a motion for extension of time. On April 2, 2004, the Court dismissed that motion for extension of time and allowed the Union's motion to strike out. The respondent is entitled to costs in both cases.
[2] The Union's assessment of costs proceeded on June 10, 2004. At the hearing, Helena P. Oliveira, respondent's counsel, undertook to provide written particulars on the claims made in its memorandum under items 9 and 27 of Tariff B. The written comments of Robert Astell, Applicants' counsel, were received on July 14, in reply to this document.
[3] In light of the above, the Union's fees calculated under Column III of Tariff B are allowed in the amount of $6,326.38 ($5,500 + GST/QST) for the following reasons:
- item 2, 7 units for the preparation and filing of the affidavit of Daniel Tremblay under rule 307 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 (the Rules) and the preparation of the respondent's record under rule 310 on the basis of the workload created by filing the application for judicial review even though, as stated by the Court in its order dated April 2, "there is nothing before the Court on which it could conclude prima facie that the notice of application is valid." On this point, I accept Ms. Oliveira's submissions regarding the conditions referred to in paragraphs 400(3)(I) and (3)(k)(ii) of the Rules according to which the applicants undertook a procedure which had limited chances of success.
- item 5, 7 units for the preparation and filing of the motion to strike out and 7 units for the preparation of the response to the applicants' motion for extension of time for the reasons mentioned earlier.
- item 8, 8 units for the preparation of the following examinations:
- 2 units: examination of Stéphane Boutin (February 12)
- 2 units: examination of Louis Roy (February 12)
- 2 units: examination of Giovanni Dipeco (February 12)
- 2 units: examination of Daniel Tremblay (February 20)
I reduced the number of units for the preparation of the examinations of Mr. Boutin, Mr. Roy and Mr. Dipeco, because, on the whole, it is the same preparation.
- item 9, 3 units X 2.5 hours ($825), examinations of February 12: this item serves to compensate counsel for appearing at the examinations, excluding the breaks.
- item 9, 3 units X 1 hour 50 minutes ($605), examination of February 20.
- item 24, as stated at the hearing, the claim made under this item is denied because only the Court has the discretion to allow this item.
- item 25, 1 unit ($110) is allowed as requested for services rendered after judgment.
- item 26, 4 units ($440) are allowed for the assessment which in my opinion is reasonable.
- item 27, no units are allowed for establishing the list of undertakings following the examinations of February 12 and 20. I agree with Mr. Astell that there would be duplication with item 9 if I were to allow compensation under this item. As for whether the undertakings were respected, that is not an argument that I can consider.
- item 27, 3 units ($330) are nevertheless allowed for the undertakings made during the examination of Daniel Tremblay, since the documents and/or information required colossal research work. According to Ms. Oliveira, this information was old and very difficult to obtain.
- item 27, the claims made for the exchange of correspondence or case law research are denied because these are services normally performed by counsel in the litigation process and not compensated by the Tariff. My decision would undoubtedly have been different if costs had been awarded on a solicitor-and-client basis.
[4] With respect to the disbursements claimed by the Union, they are all established by affidavit and are not disputed by the applicants. Mr. Astell does raise the fact, however, that certain expenses are too high. Subsection 1(4) of Tariff B provides that necessary and reasonable disbursements are allowed on assessment. In this context, all the expenses claimed are assessed as claimed for a total of $1,365.77, with the exception of the research on Quicklaw and the preparation of the following documents:
- Quicklaw, $770.52 - $158.66 for research on October 1, 7 and 8, carried out before the application for judicial review was filed: $611.86
- motion record, 411 pages X $0.2 X 7 copies: $719.25
- affidavit of Daniel Tremblay, 608 pages X $0.25 $ X 7 copies: $1,064
[5] The Union's costs in this case are assessed and allowed in the amount of $10,087.26 ($6,326.38/fees + $3,760.88/disbursement). A certificate is issued in this amount.
Signed: "Michelle Lamy" MICHELLE LAMY
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
July 23, 2004
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-470-03
Between:
SYLVIO BELMONTE ET AL.
Applicants
and
LONGSHOREMEN'S UNION
CUPE LOCAL 375
AND
MARITIME EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: June 10, 2004
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec
REASONS BY MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATE OF REASONS: July 23, 2004
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Astell Leblanc Downs
Montréal, Quebec For the applicants
Lamoureux, Morin, Lamoureux
Longueuil, Quebec For the respondent Longshoremen's Union CUPE Local 375
Ogilvy Renault
Montréal, Quebec For the respondent Maritime Employers Association