Date: 20030429
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 532
BETWEEN:
CHAITANYA K. KALEVAR
Applicant
- and -
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
and MR. J. BHADURIA
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
B. PRESTON
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1] By way of order dated June 7, 2001, the Applicant's application was dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court's order was silent as to costs.
[2] By way of order dated November 15, 2001, the Court dismissed the Applicant's motion, for an appeal of the order dated June 7, 2001, and to permit the motion notwithstanding the 10 day time limitation prescribed by Rule 51. Once again, there was no order as to costs.
[3] On October 21, 2002, the Liberal Party of Canada (Respondent) filed a draft Bill of Costs presenting costs for various interlocutory hearings. On November 12, 2002, a letter was sent to both parties indicating that this matter appeared to be appropriate for disposition by way of written submissions. Both parties have filed their submissions, therefore, I will turn my attention to the assessment of the costs in this matter.
Assessment
[4] The Applicant, filed written submissions respecting costs on January 9, 2003. I am starting with these as the vast majority of these submissions are not germane to the issue before me. The Applicant submits that the Liberal Party of Canada is a non-legal entity and makes submissions concerning their status before the Court. As alluded to by the Applicant in paragraph 31 of his submissions, the status of the Liberal Party of Canada is beyond my jurisdiction as an assessment officer therefore, as mentioned earlier, this portion of the Applicant's submissions is not relevant.
[5] At paragraph 18, the Applicant submits:
A junior counsel being paid $225.00 an hour that is almost 30 times the minimum wage. Please consider this as the single most important factor that makes justice inaccessible and unaffordable for most Canadians. I cannot imagine any factor thathas alienated Canadians from the Administration of justice than the high wage rates of lawyers.
[6] Without addressing the merits of this submission, I concluded that this submission, although related to costs, is not relevant. As stated by the Respondent:
The Respondent has limited its claim for costs to amounts permitted in accordance with Column III of the Table to Tariff B of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[7] This approach is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 407 which states:
Unless the Court orders otherwise, party and party costs shall be assessed in accordance with Column III of the Table to Tariff B.
[8] Given that the Respondent has utilized Column III to calculate assessable services the hourly rate charged by the law firm for the services of a junior counsel is not relevant to the issue before me.
[9] In light of the foregoing, except in circumstances where the Respondent is not legally entitled to costs, I am ready to assess the costs in favour of the Respondent.
Fees
[10] Concerning the motion heard the 10 day of November, 2000, the Respondent has presented costs for fees totalling $2,915.00 plus GST. I am prepared to allow the fees under item 5 for preparation of the motion as requested.
[11] The fees under item 6 for appearance at the above mentioned motion are presented at 19.5 units. According to the abstract of hearing, the motion had a duration of 20 minutes. Pursuant to Tariff B 2(2), fractions of units may not be used, therefore, fees under item 6 are calculated allowing 3 units per hour for 1/3 of an hour resulting in a total of 1 unit for attendance at the motion.
[12] Concerning the motion heard December 20, 2000, the costs were fixed at $1,000.00. This amount remains unchanged. In its Bill of Costs, the Respondent hasrequested an additional $466.71 for disbursements. This amount is not allowed as the Court fixed costs at $1,000.00 pursuant to Rule 401, and this amount is inclusive of disbursements.
[13] Having regard to the Status Review, the Respondent has claimed $880.00 plus GST. No costs are allowed for the Status Review as the order is silent as to costs. Pursuant to Rule 400(1), the Court, not an assessment officer, has full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs.
[14] Having regard to the motion heard July 23, 2001, the Respondent claims $1,265.00 in fees. The order of the Court states:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1) Leave is granted to the Respondent, Liberal Party of Canada to file its responding material.
2) Rehearing of the Applicant's motion is set for Wednesday the 25th of July 2001 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
3) The Applicant to serve Mr. Bhaduria with his motion materials.
[15] As was the case with the Status Review, there was no order as to costs pursuant to Rule 400(1), therefore, no costs are allowed.
[16] Having regard to the appeal heard July 25, 2001, the Respondent claims $1,870.00 in fees. As the order dated November 15, 2001 makes no provision for costs, no costs are awarded for this appeal.
Disbursements
[17] Further to the above findings concerning the various hearings claimed in the Bill of Costs, the only disbursements allowed are those for the motion heard November 10, 2000.
[18] In the Bill of Costs, the Respondent claims $75.00 for photocopying the Motion Record, however, in the Affidavit of Disbursements of Craig A. Parkinson sworn February 21, 2003, at paragraph 5, the Respondent seeks $125.00 for photocopying. The difference between these two amounts is due to a difference in the number of copies of the Motion Record claimed.
[19] From the file, it is clear that the Motion Record contained 100 pages. Pursuant to the Federal Court Rules, 1998, the Respondent required 5 copies (3 for the Court, 1 for the Applicant and 1 for Mr. Bhaduria). The Respondent claimed $0.25 per page for photocopies. Pursuant to Moloney v. Canada, [1989] 1 C.T.C. 213, this amount per page is reasonable and there is no reason to deviate from that in the circumstances of this file. Under these circumstances, the amount of $125.00 is allowed.
[20] In conclusion, the Bill of Costs presented by the Respondent at $9,109.06 is assessed and allowed at $2,066.60. A certificate of assessment will be issued for this amount.
"Bruce Preston"
Bruce Preston
Assessment Officer
Toronto, Ontario
April 29, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-472-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: CHAITANYA K. KALEVAR
Applicant
- and -
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA and
MR. J. BHADURIA
Respondents
ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -
REASONS BY: BRUCE PRESTON
DATED: TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Toronto, Ontaro
For the Respondents
The Liberal Party of Canada
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20030429
Docket: T-472-00
BETWEEN:
CHAITANYA K. KALEVAR
Applicant
- and -
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
and MR. J. BHADURIA
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS