PRACTICE |
Costs |
Williams v. M.N.R.
T-1646-97
2001 FCT 106, Stinson A.O.
22/2/01
14 pp.
Action addressing issues concerning seizure, import, valuation, jurisdiction relative to aircraft, helicopter, Customs Act--Court deciding in favour of plaintiffs with costs --Plaintiffs presented bill of costs combining elements of solicitor-client, party-and-party costs--Case not most difficult of matters, but had some complexity--Fact that actual cost to client may exceed, perhaps significantly, party-and-party costs permissible under Tariff factor to be considered, but generally should not be determinative--Court allowing 6 units for item 1: preparation, filing of statement of claim--Defendant argued plaintiffs' settlement offer not meeting threshold set by r. 420--According to defendant, designation of $10,000 as GST meant plaintiffs would be eligible for almost immediate return of those $10,000 because of set-off regulations--Payment of $10,000 would have been better for defendant--Plaintiffs asserted defendant in worse position as judgment left it in custody of aircraft, with expense of maintenance--Proposal to pay cash, get aircraft back in comparable condition reasonable--Assessment officer not accepting plaintiffs' proposition judgment left defendant in worse position simply because latter continues to hold aircraft, to spend dollars to maintain it--Defendant administering Act embodying public policy, purpose of which not profit--Plaintiffs' settlement offer not meeting r. 420 threshold--Plaintiffs' bill of costs, presented at $22,160.80, assessed, allowed at $11,693.80--Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 420.