Date: 19990812
Docket: T-1410-95
BETWEEN:
DEWJI & GHECIU CONSULTANTS INC.
and DAN GHECIU
Plaintiffs
- and -
A & A CONSULTANTS & FELICIA BILC
and ADRIAN D. BILC
Defendants
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
G.M. Smith,
Assessment Officer
[1] Counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants appeared before me at Toronto on August 9, 1999 for the assessment of the defendants' Bill of Costs filed on April 28, 1999. As I explained at the hearing, on the basis of counsel's arguments and in accordance with the Court's instructions herein dated March 16 and April 15, 1999, I have determined all of the fees and disbursements claimed by the defendants to be reasonable and will therefore allow them in full with the following exceptions.
[2] In the claim under item 6 of Tariff B for appearance on the injunction motion, the defendants include time spent waiting for their motion to be called by the presiding Judge. The total claimed in the Bill is 5.5 hours, while the Court record shows that only 1.5 hours were actually spent in arguing the motion. In the case of Melo's Food Centre Ltd. v. Borges Food Ltd., (unreported) Court file no. T-916-89, dated August 8, 1996, the Assessment Officer reasoned that in an assessment on a party-and-party scale it would be inappropriate to burden the opposing party with the additional cost of waiting time. I agree with that approach and also express the view that I would likely have taken a more generous view if costs had been awarded on a solicitor-and-client scale. This item will be reduced to 1.5 hours. For similar reasons, the defendants' claim for 3 hours with respect to appearance on a motion before the Prothonotary will also be reduced to 2 hours.
[3] The defendants present two claims for fees under item 7 of the Tariff. Counsel for the plaintiffs took the position that this item can only be claimed once. In reply, counsel for the defendants explained that the filing of a second affidavit of documents followed a change of plaintiffs' counsel who presented a second, completely new, affidavit.
[4] I interpret the Tariff to suggest that it is the aggregate event of discovery that is intended to be reimbursed rather than each event in that process. This approach is consistent with the view taken in other assessments in this Court. I am persuaded by counsel's argument, however, that the defendants were put to an unusual amount of work for discovery. I have therefore decided to allow the defendants' second claim of 5 units for discovery, but under Tariff item 27 for "(s)uch other services as may be allowed by the assessment officer or ordered by the Court" rather than under item 7.
[5] Accordingly, a Certificate of Assessment will issue allowing costs against the plaintiffs, jointly and severally, in the amount of $12,350.00 for fees and $2,591.08 for disbursements and taxes; against the corporate plaintiff, DEWJI & GHECIU CONSULTANTS INC., in the amount of $1,200.00 for fees; and against the individual plaintiff, DAN GHECIU, in the amount of $600.00 for fees.
(signed: Gregory M. Smith)
Gregory M. Smith
Assessment Officer
Ottawa, Ontario
August 12, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket: T-1410-95
DEWJI & GHECIU CONSULTANTS INC.
and DAN GHECIU
Plaintiffs
- and -
A & A CONSULTANTS & FELICIA BILC
and ADRIAN D. BILC
Defendants
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: August 4, 1999
DATE OF REASONS BY
G.M. SMITH,
ASSESSMENT OFFICER: August 12, 1999
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Zeya Haque for the Plaintiff, DEWJI & GHECIU CONSULTANTS INC. |
| Mr. Ian MacKinnon for the Plaintiff, DAN GHECIU |
| Mr. Scott A. Rosen for the Defendants |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
HAQUE & ASSOCIATES
Barristers & Solicitors
| Toronto, Ontario for the Plaintiff, DEWJI & GHECIU CONSULTANTS INC. |
MCCARTHY TÉTRAULT
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario for the Plaintiff, DAN GHECIU
GOLDMAN ROSEN
Barristers & Solicitors
| Toronto, Ontario for the Defendants |