[2016] 3 F.C.R. D-7
Practice
Costs
Appeal from costs portion of Federal Court’s (F.C.) decision (2014 FC 1088) wherein F.C. denied appellants’ motions for solicitor-client costs, made single award of costs of $5 000 in favour of appellants — Appellants (or joint applicants) filing joint application in F.C. seeking relief on ground that F.C. or Federal Court of Appeal judge ineligible, by terms of Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26, s. 6, to be appointed to “Quebec” seat on Supreme Court of Canada — Governor in Council referring interpretation of Act, ss. 5, 6 to Supreme Court (Reference) — Joint application stayed in exchange for Attorney General’s undertaking not to oppose appellants’ application for intervener status in Reference — Following release of Supreme Court’s decision, case management conference held ordering final disposition of joint application, costs — Joint applicants filing motions seeking, inter alia, entitlement to solicitor-client costs for private citizens bringing constitutional challenge going to “architecture of the Constitution” — F.C. finding no basis for awarding solicitor-client costs, no circumstances justifying highest award of costs — Whether F.C. erred in failing to: analyze claim of constitutional requirement that successful litigant be awarded solicitor-client costs in case of public interest litigation; to award appellants solicitor-client costs in circumstances of case — Supreme Court holding in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331 that award of special costs in public interest litigation justified if certain conditions met — Joint applicants modifying this test by substituting for requirement that litigation have widespread societal impact, condition that litigation must go to “architecture of the Constitution” — Joint applicants not successful litigants, can only claim costs in relation to judicial treatment of joint application which was dismissed — Not entitled to special costs pursuant to F.C.’s discretion over award of costs as Carter principles not met — Per Stratas J.A. (concurring): No constitutional right for lawyers acting as public interest litigants to collect pay, bonuses from public purse — Appellants choosing to proceed with litigation with no reasonable expectation of receiving more than normal level of costs under Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, r. 400, Tariff B — Appeal dismissed.
Galati v. Harper (A-541-14, 2016 FCA 39, Pelletier and Stratas JJ.A, judgment dated February 8, 2016, 17 pp.)