Date: 20041102
Docket: T-503-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1543
BETWEEN:
MICHEL OUELLET
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
FRANÇOIS PILON
Assessment Officer
[1] On March 10, 2004 the applicant filed an application for judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
[2] On July 21, 2004 the Court made an order as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
The applicant failed to serve and file his applicant's record within the time specified in the Federal Court Rules;
The proceeding brought by the applicant is subject to a delay that was not justified;
The respondent was not in default under the Federal Court Rules;
The respondent is entitled to ask for the dismissal of the instant application for judicial review pursuant to Rules 167 and 309 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) (SOR/98-106).
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The application for judicial review be dismissed, with costs.
[3] On August 23, 2004 the respondent filed a bill of costs for assessment without a personal appearance by the parties. Michel Ouellet, the applicant, filed written submissions in opposition to this bill. They read:
[TRANSLATION]
Regarding the said bill of costs, I object categorically to any amount claimed and would appreciate the person considering the application answering the following questions before making any decisions.
Is it usual when an individual who has problems with a Minister and mentions the problem to the Human Rights Commission, and the technician finds the claim is admissible, for the member of the Commission to dismiss the case after nearly a year's work, and when the individual asks for the reasons for the decision he is told that the Commission has no reasons to give and the only recourse the individual has is to file an application for judicial review to find out the reasons, leaving the same individual with a bill of nearly $1,400?
Is it usual in a country which prides itself on the individual being able to defend himself or herself for that individual to have to know every detail of a court's rules and forms [and] when he asks questions in order to understand them he is strongly advised to consult a lawyer in order to have them interpreted?
Are the procedural deadlines suited to this kind of defence? - considering that the individual has to master these procedures and rules which are only properly understood by legal professionals!
Is it usual for a Minister who has almost unlimited financial resources to occasion unjustified proceedings which result in exorbitant costs for the initial application, which are then claimed from the opposing party? Is this an abuse of power or attempted intimidation? Where is the respect for the individual and his or her rights in all that has just been mentioned?
I would also appreciate it if you would not send me another bill of costs which will cost me $1,400 for each of the last questions raised. I would also appreciate it if a court official called for an investigation into this matter.
[4] I understand the frustration expressed by the applicant and the situation in which he finds himself. Clearly Mr. Ouellet did not familiarize himself with the various procedural stages imposed by the Rules after he filed his initial notice of application. Experience indicates that many people who elect to act for themselves are not aware of the responsibilities or risks involved in the legal proceedings they have initiated.
[5] However, misunderstanding of the Court's Rules and procedures is not an adequate defence. The provisions of Rule 122, quoted below, clarify the obligations of an unrepresented party.
Subject to paragraphs 152(2)(a) and 146(1)(b), unless the Court orders otherwise, a party not represented by a solicitor or a person authorized under rule 120 to represent a party shall do everything required, and may do anything permitted, to be done by a solicitor under these Rules. [Emphasis added.]
[6] Essentially, the applicant is objecting to any amount claimed in the bill of costs. However, the authority of the assessment officer derives from the Court Rules (specifically Rule 405) and the order made by the judge. The Court's discretion is clearly set out in Rule 400(1):
The Court shall have full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs and the determination of by whom they are to be paid.
[7] In the circumstances, therefore, I must proceed to assess the bill of costs. In doing so, I have taken into account the factors mentioned in paragraphs 3(a), (b), (c) and (g) of Rule 400 to determine the amounts of fees to be awarded. Dominique Guimond, counsel for the respondent, claimed 4 units for filing an unopposed motion and 6 units for the assessment of costs. In my opinion, the maximum number of units claimed for these two items is too high. Instead, I award 3 units for each of the two items.
[8] The disbursements of $22.50 for photocopies are reasonable and the bailiff's fees for serving various documents are verified in the affidavit in support of the bill of costs. The respondent's costs are assessed and allowed in the amount of $915.84. A certificate is issued for that amount.
|
Halifax, Nova Scotia November 2, 2004 |
(signed)
François Pilon Assessment Officer |
Certified true translation
Jacques Deschênes, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: T-503-04
BETWEEN: MICHEL OUELLET
Applicant
-and-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Halifax, Nova Scotia
REASONS BY: FRANÇOIS PILON, ASSESSMENT OFFICER
DATED: November 2, 2004
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg for the respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario