Date: 19971205
Docket: T-703-96
BETWEEN:
COUNTRY CURTAINS INC.
Plaintiff
- and -
COUNTRY CURTAIN AND GIFT SHOPPE
Defendant
TAXATION OF COSTS - REASONS
G.M. SMITH, TAXING OFFICER
[1] This is a taxation on a party-and-party basis of the plaintiff's costs of this action.
[2] These proceedings were commenced by way of a Statement of Claim filed on March 26, 1996. On June 18, 1997, judgment issued striking out the defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim and awarding costs of the action to the plaintiff.
[3] On September 19, 1997 the plaintiff filed its Bill of Costs which was contained in the affidavit of Jamie Bocking sworn on the same date. The plaintiff requested the taxation proceed by way of written representations, without the personal appearance of the parties. As attested to in the affidavit of William Colwell, sworn September 29, 1997 and filed on October 8, 1997, the Bill of Costs and supporting documentation were served on the defendant on September 25, 1997.
[4] On September 15, 1997, I caused instructions to be issued to the parties giving the defendant until November 4, 1997 to file written representations in reply to the plaintiff's Bill of Costs. The plaintiff was given until November 14, 1997 to file written representations further to any made by the defendant. No representations were received from either party. I therefore assessed the plaintiff's costs on the basis of the documentation which then appeared on the Court record.
[5] The plaintiff claims for services relating to items 1, 5, 6, and 7 of Tariff B, Part II, Column III. The Bill of Costs itself distinguishes each of those items in connection with the two lawyers from the plaintiff's firm who expended time on those services. For example, the item for "Drafting and filing of Statement of Claim" identifies 3 units - Mirko Bibic and 4 units - Stuart C. McCormack. I do not take this to mean that the plaintiff is claiming for first and second counsel as, for example, might be allowable under items 14 and 22 of the Tariff if so directed by the Court, which was not the case here. Rather, I interpret the identification of the two lawyers' names in the Bill as simply an intention to justify the maximum number of units being claimed. I have therefore allowed the amounts requested for a total of 37 units, multiplied by the unit value of $100 and arriving at a total amount of $3,700 for services.
[6] Disbursements are claimed in the amounts of $830.79 and $75.00 for process services and filing fees, respectively. Invoices appended to the Bocking affidavit fully support the amount for process services but the Court record only shows $50.00 as having been expended for filing fees. The latter disbursement will therefore be reduced accordingly.
[7] Telecopier charges and photocopying expenses are also listed in the Bill of Costs. The affiant Bocking refers as well in the body of his affidavit to expenses for binding, although this item does not appear in the Bill itself. These expenditures appear among a plethora of other items included in the firm's disbursement ledger, a copy of which was exhibited to the Bocking affidavit. It appears that these are in-house expenditures, as opposed to out-of-pocket disbursements which would normally be supported by an invoice or voucher. No detail is provided to the support these claims, for example what was copied or telecopied, the number of copies that were made and the purpose, and the actual or estimated cost incurred by the law firm for making the calls or the copies. The ledger does not refer to binding at all.
[8] The circumstances in the present taxation are very similar to those I recently decided in Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Sully Imports Ltd., unreported, Court file no. T-2637-96, dated October 23, 1997. I do not know if the costs for telecopy, binding and photocopies were for multiple documents or for only one. I have no manner by which to determine whether 25" was charged or $1.00 per page. I also do not know what was photocopied or what portion of the amount claimed is for binding and what amount is for photocopies. Nor has it even been shown whether those costs were remotely related to the action or that they were highly relevant. I therefore have no way of determining whether the amounts being claimed are in any way reasonable or that they were necessary. Nor, for that matter, does the plaintiff in its affidavit, or even in its written representations, aver to that fact.
[9] As I expressed in Taylor Made Golf (supra) in reference to an earlier taxation in F-C Research Institute Ltd. v. H.M.Q., also unreported, Court file no. T-2338-87, September 21, 1995, the simple delineation of expenditures generally described in a Bill and supported by a scant statement alone that they were reasonable and necessary does not provide sufficient information to discharge the responsibility of being satisfied that the costs claimed were essential to the conduct of the proceedings, that they were prudently incurred, or that the quantity or rate applied, as the case may be, was reasonable in the circumstances. Unless the parties agree, the party whose bill is being assessed must prove the disbursement. No agreement has been brought to my attention and the information provided by the plaintiff and described above falls well short of establishing any basis for even guessing at an amount for which, in a party-and-party context, the defendant should be held accountable.
[10] The words used in section 3 of Part III of Tariff B to the Rules, "Such other disbursements as were reasonably necessary in the proceeding", must surely have been intended to require something other than the simple production of a list. In the present case, I am unable to determine in any way, and then certify, that the expenditures claimed for photocopies, telecopying and binding were reasonable and necessary. They are therefore taxed off.
[11] The plaintiff's Bill of Costs is assessed in the total amount of $4,580.79.
Gregory M. Smith
Taxing Officer
Ottawa, Ontario
December 5, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-703-96
BETWEEN:
| COUNTRY CURTAINS INC. |
Plaintiff
| - and - |
| COUNTRY CURTAIN AND GIFT SHOPPE |
| Defendant |
TAXATION IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
TAXATION OF COSTS - REASONS BY G. SMITH, TAXING OFFICER
DATE OF REASONS: December 5, 1997
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Mirco Bibic for the Plaintiff |
No one appearing for the Defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
STIKEMAN, ELLIOTT
Ottawa, Ontario for the Plaintiff