Trans-Tec Services Inc. v. Lyubov Orlova (The)
Court headnote
Trans-Tec Services Inc. v. Lyubov Orlova (The) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-09-06 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 312 File numbers A-491-01 Decision Content Date: 20020906 Docket: A-491-01 Neutral Citation: 2002 FCA 312 BETWEEN: TRANS-TEC SERVICES INC. Appellant - and - THE SHIP "LYUBOV ORLOVA" and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN THE SHIP "LYUBOV ORLOVA" Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS FRANÇOIS PILON Assessment Officer This appeal was dismissed with costs on June 25, 2002. [2] The assessment of Respondents' bill of costs took place on August 28, 2002 by telephone conference with Mr. John Sinnott, Q.C. acting on behalf of the Respondents and Mr. Jean-François Bilodeau, acting for the Appellant. [3] Mr. Bilodeau does not object to the items listed under assessable services. However, he opposes the highest level of units sought for each item. Counsel argues this is not a complicated matter and that a minimal amount of work was required. Mr. Bilodeau suggests that 2 units for item 26 (assessment of costs) would reflect the amount of work done to prepare the simple bill of costs and that the middle range of units of Column III for the other items would be acceptable. [4] In response Mr. Sinnott maintains that the maximum number of units (7) for item 19 is justified by the substantial amount of time spent to review the record and research the case law to reply to the Appellant's memorandum of fact and law. [5] I have considered the argu…
Read full judgment
Trans-Tec Services Inc. v. Lyubov Orlova (The) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-09-06 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 312 File numbers A-491-01 Decision Content Date: 20020906 Docket: A-491-01 Neutral Citation: 2002 FCA 312 BETWEEN: TRANS-TEC SERVICES INC. Appellant - and - THE SHIP "LYUBOV ORLOVA" and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN THE SHIP "LYUBOV ORLOVA" Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS FRANÇOIS PILON Assessment Officer This appeal was dismissed with costs on June 25, 2002. [2] The assessment of Respondents' bill of costs took place on August 28, 2002 by telephone conference with Mr. John Sinnott, Q.C. acting on behalf of the Respondents and Mr. Jean-François Bilodeau, acting for the Appellant. [3] Mr. Bilodeau does not object to the items listed under assessable services. However, he opposes the highest level of units sought for each item. Counsel argues this is not a complicated matter and that a minimal amount of work was required. Mr. Bilodeau suggests that 2 units for item 26 (assessment of costs) would reflect the amount of work done to prepare the simple bill of costs and that the middle range of units of Column III for the other items would be acceptable. [4] In response Mr. Sinnott maintains that the maximum number of units (7) for item 19 is justified by the substantial amount of time spent to review the record and research the case law to reply to the Appellant's memorandum of fact and law. [5] I have considered the arguments of both parties and decided upon the following number of units which seem fair in the circumstances: Items claimed Number of Units allowed item 19 6 units item 22 6 units item 25 1 unit item 26 3 units [6] The Respondents' bill of costs will be assessed and allowed in the amounts of $1,760.00 for assessable services and $376.47 for disbursements. A certificate of assessment will issue in the amount of $2,136.47. Halifax, Nova Scotia September 6, 2002 François Pilon Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD COURT FILE NO.: A-491-01 BETWEEN: TRANS-TEC SERVICES INC. Appellant -and- THE SHIP "LYUBOV ORLOVA" ET AL Respondents ASSESSMENT BY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON AUGUST 28, 2002 ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS BY: FRANÇOIS PILON DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 2002 APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Jean-François Bilodaeu For the Appellant Mr. John Sinnott, Q.C. For the Respondents SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Flynn Rivard Montreal, Quebec For the Appellant Lewis Sinnott St. John's, Newfoundland For the Respondents
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca