Coppley Noyes & Randall Ltd. v. Canada
T-1099-86
Stinson T.O.
10/12/93
14 pp.
Plaintiff presenting bill of costs at $68,011.59 -- Defendant disputing second counsel fees, disbursements for photocopies, for experts -- Trial concerning disallowance of reserve claimed for doubtful debts -- No extraordinary issues i.e. bad debts not unusual -- Given volume of material use of second counsel by both sides maximized efficiency of Court's time -- Volume by itself, unless extraordinary, not "special" reason prompting exercise of discretion under Tariff B 1(1)(i) -- As volume herein not extraordinary second counsel fees disallowed -- Photocopying charges allowed -- Facsimiles, photocopies, long distance tolls not in same context as secretarial services, which are ongoing, existing beyond life of, and not restricted to particular lawsuit -- Although statement of claim filed in 1986, nothing allowed for experts' fees prior to 1990 -- Solicitor has professional obligation to consider, recommend purchase of professional expertise, not bound up in partial indemnification of Tariff B 1(1) -- Subjective language of Tariffs suggesting discretionary approach by Taxing Officers, and if appropriate in absence of absolute truth, reasoned estimates -- Roles of experts examined in context of demands of this lawsuit and ordinary expertise expected of solicitor relative to additional need for accountants in advisory role and apart from whether deemed qualified under R. 482 -- Number of references to expert in reasons of Court not appropriate standard of evaluation in taxations -- Bill of costs of plaintiff taxed and allowed at $38,686.59-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 482 (as am. by SOR/87-221), Tariff B 1(1) (as am. by SOR/90-846, ss. 18, 19).