Express File Inc. v. HBR Royalty Inc.
Source text
Express File Inc. v. HBR Royalty Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-07-28 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 268 File numbers A-364-03, A-365-03 Decision Content Date: 20060728 Docket: A-364-03 (A-365-03) Citation: 2006 FCA 268 Between: EXPRESS FILE, INC. Appellant AND HBR ROYALTY, INC. Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS –REASONS MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This is an appeal of the decision of the Federal Court dismissing an appeal from the decision of Prothonotary Morneau, in which the Prothonotary ordered that certain portions of an affidavit be struck on the ground that they were hearsay, contrary to Rule 81 of the Federal Courts Rules. As requested, the assessment of the respondent’s costs proceeded on the basis of written submissions. [2] Having examined the record and reviewed the submissions made by the appellant, the fees are allowed in the amount of $1,680 for the following items: 19 (5 units/preparation of the memorandum of fact and law), 21a) (3 units/response to appellant’s motion for reconsideration) and 22 (3 units X 2 hours/hearing of September 15, 2004). The claim made under item 5 is compensated under item 21, since items 16 to 22 of Tariff B must be used to assess costs in an appeal initiated under Part 6 of the Rules. As submitted by the appellant, no fees can be awarded under item 24, as there is no order or direction of the Court in that regard. [3] Considering that the proceedings in both cases are identical and that the app…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Express File Inc. v. HBR Royalty Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-07-28 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 268 File numbers A-364-03, A-365-03 Decision Content Date: 20060728 Docket: A-364-03 (A-365-03) Citation: 2006 FCA 268 Between: EXPRESS FILE, INC. Appellant AND HBR ROYALTY, INC. Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS –REASONS MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This is an appeal of the decision of the Federal Court dismissing an appeal from the decision of Prothonotary Morneau, in which the Prothonotary ordered that certain portions of an affidavit be struck on the ground that they were hearsay, contrary to Rule 81 of the Federal Courts Rules. As requested, the assessment of the respondent’s costs proceeded on the basis of written submissions. [2] Having examined the record and reviewed the submissions made by the appellant, the fees are allowed in the amount of $1,680 for the following items: 19 (5 units/preparation of the memorandum of fact and law), 21a) (3 units/response to appellant’s motion for reconsideration) and 22 (3 units X 2 hours/hearing of September 15, 2004). The claim made under item 5 is compensated under item 21, since items 16 to 22 of Tariff B must be used to assess costs in an appeal initiated under Part 6 of the Rules. As submitted by the appellant, no fees can be awarded under item 24, as there is no order or direction of the Court in that regard. [3] Considering that the proceedings in both cases are identical and that the appeals were heard on the same basis, all costs requested in file docket number A-365-03 are denied in order to avoid double compensation for the services rendered by counsel. Given that the value of the unit was readjusted on April 1, 2005, pursuant to subsection 4(1) of the Tariff, and that the respondent filed its bills of costs after that date, I have made the adjustment in calculating the amount of the fees. [4] The costs of the respondent are taxed and allowed in the amount of $1,680. A certificate is issued for that amount in Court file A-364-03 and a copy of these reasons is placed in Court file A-365-03. DATED AT MONTREAL THIS 28th DAY OF JULY, 2006. Signed: «Michelle Lamy» MICHELLE LAMY ASSESSMENT OFFICER FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD COURT FILE NO.: A-364-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: EXPRESS FILE, INC. Appellant AND HBR ROYALTY, INC. Respondent ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES PLACE OF TAXATION: Montreal, Quebec ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS BY: MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER DATE OF REASONS: JULY 28, 2006 SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay Toronto, Ontario for the applicant Fraser Milner Casgrain Montreal, Quebec for the respondent
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca
Quebec (Attorney General) v A
[2013] 1 SCR 61