Date: 20030924
Docket: T-195-01
Neutral Citation: 2003 FC 1098
BETWEEN:
Dr. Noel Ayangma
Plaintiff
- and -
Her Majesty the Queen
Defendant
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
FRANÇOIS PILON
Assessment Officer
[1] This is an action for damages against Her Majesty the Queen alleging harm from wrongful process following an appointment to a position within the Federal Public Service.
By Order dated June 25, 2002 Mr. Justice Blanchard dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment with costs. Moreover, the Court awarded costs of a punitive nature against Dr. Ayangma pursuant to the provisions of Rule 70 (4).
[2] The assessment of Defendant's bill of costs took place on September 11, 2003 by telephone conference with Mr. James Gunvaldsen-Klaassen, counsel for the defendant and Dr. Noel Ayangma, acting in his own behalf.
[3] The plaintiff objects to the number of units sought for all assessable services in the bill of costs. He maintains they are too high and therefore not justified. Mr. Gunvaldsen-Klaassen claims 5 units for the preparation and filing of the statement of defence. He argues that there were enough issues raised to warrant the mid-range number of units. I agree with the Crown's position.
[4] There are three separate amounts claimed with regards to three notices of motion filed. An amount of $1,200 had been allowed by Mr. Justice MacKay in dismissing the plaintiff's motion in the nature of a show cause order for alleged contempt of Court. Secondly, the defendant claims 5 units for the preparation of a motion (document # 46) seeking security for costs. This motion was originally dealt with by Mr. Richard Morneau, Prothonotary, in a Direction to parties on September 4, 2001 as follows:
"As for the motion for security for costs, I shall deal with it once a final judgment is entered on the plaintiff summary judgment motion".
[5] There is no indication on the Court record that this motion was adjudicated upon at a later date. Consequently, no authority exists to recover these costs.
[6] Finally, defendant's motion to vary an order of the Court (document # 60) was dismissed with costs in the cause. The minimum of 3 units will be allowed as requested.
[7] Dr. Ayangma objects to specific amounts of $1,430 and $2,750 as ordered by the Court under Rule 70(4). Mr. Gunvaldsen-Klaassen correctly points out that these items were ordered by Mr. Justice Blanchard as punitive measures against the plaintiff for having filed two memorandums of facts and law of seventy-seven and one hundred and thirty-six pages respectively. Judges have full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs pursuant to the provisions of Rule 400 (1), not assessment officers.
[8] Six units are requested for the assessment of costs. The costs of this action were assessed along with the bills of costs of the two related appeals and arguments lasted approximately thirty minutes. In the circumstances the number of units will be reduced from 6 to 3.
Disbursements
[9] Mr. Gunvaldsen-Klaassen reduced the charge for courier services from $14.47 to $3.50. Photocopying and postage charges are allowed as presented; they were necessary for the conduct of the litigation and are supported by invoices.
[10] The final contested item is an amount of $1,152.32 claimed for Quick Law research. Dr. Ayangma argues that these charges are exorbitant and without justification. Counsel for the defence replies that they were incurred and that unsuccessful parties are liable to reimburse them.
[11] I think each party has a point. Parties may be reimbursed for certain costs related to searches made on Quick Law. There is some evidence that the searches were actually made; what I question is their reasonableness. For example between April 2 and April 18, 2002 the defendant made two hundred and forty-seven searches, incurring charges of $1,024.83. Were all these searches relevant or necessary to defend the action? What is reasonable in the circumstances? In my respectful opinion this figure appears to be excessive. I will use my discretion and deduct the amount of $500.00 from this item.
[12] The bill of costs of the defendant is assessed and allowed in the amounts of $6,690.00 for fees and $2,080.18 for disbursements. A certificate of assessment will issue in the sum of $8,770.18.
Halifax, Nova Scotia
September 24, 2003 François Pilon
Assessment Officer
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-195-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Dr. Noel Ayangma v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, N.S. and Charlottetown, P.E.I. by teleconference
DATE OF HEARING: September 11, 2003
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: François Pilon
DATED: September 24, 2003
APPEARANCES BY:
Dr. Noel Ayangma, on his own behalf For the appellant
Mr. Gunvaldsen-Klaassen For the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada, Ottawa, ON For the respondent