Bellemare v. Canada (Attorney General)

Bellemare v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2003-05-16
Neutral citation
2003 FCT 618
File numbers
T-1073-99
Decision Content
Date: 20030516
Docket: T-1073-99
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCT 618
Between:
DANIEL MARTIN BELLEMARE
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Docket: A-598-99
Between:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
DANIEL MARTIN BELLEMARE
Respondent
and
OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA
Intervener
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1] On June 21, 1999, Daniel Martin Bellemare filed an application for judicial review under section 41 of the Access to Information Act. On September 8, 1999, the Attorney General of Canada asked that the application for judicial review be struck under rule 221(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. On September 16, the Court allowed the respondent's motion to strike in part.
[2] The Attorney General of Canada's appeal from that decision was heard on November 27, 2000. On November 30, the Court of Appeal ordered:
For these reasons, I would allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the motions Judge and giving the judgment that the motions Judge should have given, I would strike the application for judicial review in its entirety with costs in favour of the appellant before both the Trial Division and the Appeal Division. In conformity with the order which allowed for his intervention, the Information Commissioner will bear his own costs as well as the disbursements of the respondent resulting from his intervention.
[3] Following this judgment, the respondent filed his bills of costs in dockets T-1073-99 and A-598-99.
[4] However, it is to be noted that on May 9, 2000, the Court of Appeal permitted the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada to intervene and ordered that it be "liable to the respondent, Bellemare, for the costs of the appeal and of this motion in any event of the appeal". The applicant submits that, because of that order, the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada is solely responsible for the respondent's costs.
[5] After reviewing the parties' representations on this issue, I am of the view that the conclusions in the Court of Appeal's judgment of November 30 are clear and that the Attorney General of Canada is entitled to claim his costs. Under rule 407 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, the costs will be assessed in accordance with Column III of Tariff B. "The Court" in that rule does not include an assessment officer. I am aware that high costs may effectively reduce accessibility to judicial review, which is provided in section 41 of the Access to Information Act. However, those representations should have been submitted to the Court, which has the sole discretion to award or not award costs under rule 400 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[6] In the Trial Division matter, the fees are allowed as follows: items 2 (5 units), 5 (5 units), 6 (2 units), 25 (1 unit) and 26 (4 units) for a total of $1,870.00. In his representations, the respondent asked that item 26 be amended to 6 units instead of 4 because of the numerous exchanges of correspondence and the preparation of his reply. Although the dispute over the bills of costs generated a higher volume of work, the assessment of costs in its entirety does not, in my view, justify the maximum number of units set out in item 26.
[7] In the Appeal Division matter, with the exception of items 19 and 26, all the fees are allowed as claimed, for a total amount of $1,430. I am allowing 4 units under item 19, because the issue as set out in the memorandum of fact and law is not complicated. Since the assessment of the bills proceeded at the same time on the basis of the same representations, I am not allowing any unit under item 26 in the Appeal Division, in order to avoid double compensation.
[8] The costs incurred in the Trial Division matter, including the travel costs, are allowed in the amount of $572.48, because they are reasonable and have been established under section 1(4) of Tariff B. According to the respondent's representations, it was preferable to have a lawyer from the Quebec regional office in Ottawa attend in Montreal for the hearing on September 13, 1999.
[9] For the same reasons, the disbursements in the Appeal Division, including the costs of $50 set out in Tariff A, are allowed in the amount of $787.12.
[10] The costs of the Attorney General of Canada at the Trial Division are assessed and allowed in the amount of $2,442.48 and at the Appeal Division in the amount of $2,217.12. A certificate will be issued in each file. A copy of these reasons will be placed in docket A-598-99.
Signed: "Michelle Lamy" MICHELLE LAMY
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
May 16, 2003
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-1073-99
Between:
DANIEL MARTIN BELLEMARE
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec
REASONS OF MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATED: May16, 2003
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast
Montréal, Quebec for the applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the respondent
Ottawa, Ontario
Daniel Brunet
Ottawa, Ontario for the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20030516
Docket: T-1073-99
BETWEEN:
DANIEL MARTIN BELLEMARE
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS