Jonathan Boutique Pour Hommes Inc. v. Jay Gur International Inc.

Jonathan Boutique Pour Hommes Inc. v. Jay Gur International Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-06-27
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 715
File numbers
T-486-98
Decision Content
Date: 20010627
Docket: T-486-98
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 715
BETWEEN:
JONATHAN, BOUTIQUE POUR HOMMES INC.
Plaintiff
AND
JAY-GUR INTERNATIONAL INC.
Defendant
TAXATION OF COSTS - REASONS
MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1] On December 20, 2000, Mr. Justice Blanchard ordered that the law firm Spiegel Sohmer be removed as solicitor of record for the Plaintiff. The Court also directed that "the Defendant pay to the Plaintiff, forthwith after taxation, its solicitor-client costs incurred from the date Mr. Levy filed his notice of change of solicitors, namely June 18, 1999, up to August 10, 2000".
[2] This issue, regarding taxation of costs, was heard on April 18, 2001, by teleconference between Mr. Richard S. Levy, of the law firm Spiegel Sohmer, in Montreal and Mr. Mirko Bibic, the Defendant's counsel, in Ottawa. The total bill of costs in the amount of $15,160.31 may be itemized as follows:
Legal services provided by Richard Levy for the period of June 18, 1999 to May 17, 2000: $265/hour X 23.60 hours = $6,254.00
Legal services provided by Richard Levy for the period of May 18, 2000 to August 10, 2000: $280/hour X 27.45 hours = $7,686.00
Legal services provided by Janet Dell'Orto for the period of June 18, 1999 to August 10, 2000: $110/hour X 8.2 hours = $902.00
Disbursements from June 18, 1999 to July 28, 2000 = $318.31
[3] The above claims were supported by four (4) invoices providing few details concerning the professional services rendered or the expenses incurred which obviously led to numerous questions on behalf of Mr. Bibic. These questions were essential in determining whether the fees and expenses claimed were in relation with the trade mark issue or not.
[4] Considering that taxation on a solicitor-and-client basis is intended to provide complete indemnity to a successful party, the law firm Spiegel Sohmer can expect to recover all legal costs that were necessary for the proceedings and which were reasonably incurred. The explanations given by Mr. Levy convinced me that all legal fees and disbursements claimed met these criteria except the following:
Fees
Invoice dated Sept. 3/99 $ 53.00 Phone call - Sept. 14/99
Invoice dated Aug. 24/00 $210.00 Miscellaneous - July 19/00
Invoice dated Aug. 24/00 $140.00 Phone call - July 25/00
Invoice dated Aug. 24/00 $160.00 Review Rules of Court - July 26/00
(Claim reduced by half)
Disbursements
Invoice dated May 3/00 $ 12.35 Fax, photocopy - March 13/00
Invoice dated May 3/00 $ 30.54 Deliveries, fax, photocopy - Apr. 10/00
Invoice dated May 3/00 $ 3.00 Fax - Apr. 12/00
Invoice dated May 3/00 $ 16.00 Fax - Apr. 28/00
Invoice dated Aug. 24/00 $ 0.39 Long distance call - Apr. 10/00
Invoice dated Aug. 24/00 $ 1.17 Long distance call - Apr. 11/00
Invoice dated Aug. 24/00 $ 0.78 Long distance call - Apr. 12/00
Invoice dated Aug. 24/00 $ 0.78 Long distance call - Apr. 13/00
Invoice dated Aug. 24/00 $ 43.45 Fax, photocopy - Apr. 28/00
[5] Pertaining to the taxation of costs, Mr. Levy submitted that the costs of preparing and taxing the present bill of costs should also be on a solicitor-and-client scale but was not able at that time to claim a specific amount for costs. He cited the case of Montreal Fast Print (1975) Ltd. v. Polylok Corp. (1984), 1 C.P.R. (3d) 204 (Fed. T.D.) as support for his proposition. In a letter dated April 19, 2001, Mr. Levy indicated that the issue of awarding costs on a solicitor-and-client scale for the taxing should be deferred in order to allow him time to submit a properly prepared bill of costs. Mr. Levy filed on May 28, 2001, an additional bill of costs. An appointment for the taxation of this bill of costs has not been issued as of yet.
[6] Mr. Levy also asked for interest on the present bill of costs. According to M.N.R. v. Bethlehem Copper Corp., (1971) 1 F.C. 577 interest runs on costs from the date of judgment even if those costs remain to be taxed but once costs are determined by the Taxing Officer, the assignment and/or calculation of interest does not form part of assessing costs. The reasons given by the Taxing Officer Stinson in Byers Transport Limited v. Kosanovich, (1996) 3 F.C.R., p. D-15, are to the effect that "it is not a function of the Taxing Officer's Certificate".
[7] In light of the above, the Plaintiff's costs are taxed in the amount of $14,488.85 ($14,279.00 for fees and $209.85 for disbursements) plus $2,176.94 for taxes. Thus, a certificate in the amount of $16,665.79 is issued.
MICHELLE LAMY
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
MONTREAL, QUEBEC
June 27, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-486-98
STYLE OF CAUSE:
JONATHAN, BOUTIQUE POUR HOMMES INC.
Plaintiff
AND
JAY-GUR INTERNATIONAL INC.
Defendant
TAXATION VIA TELECONFERENCE
ASSESSMENT TOOK PLACE ON APRIL 18, 2001
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -
REASONS BY: MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATE OF REASONS: June 27, 2001
APPEARED: Mr. Richard S. Levyfor the Plaintiff
Mr. Mirko Bibic for the Defendant
SOLICITORS ON RECORD:
De Grandpré, Chait
Montreal, Quebec for the Plaintiff
Stikeman, Elliot
Ottawa, Ontario for the Defendant