Halifax Regional Municipality Pension Committee v. Superintendent of Pensions (N.S.) et al.

• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Judge: Moir, J.
• Citation: (2005), 248 N.S.R.(2d) 38 (SC),2005 NSSC 228
• Date: 19 August 2005

Halifax Pension Com. v. Superintendent (2005), 248 N.S.R.(2d) 38 (SC);

    789 A.P.R. 38

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AU.016

The Members of the Halifax Regional Municipality Pension Committee, as Administrator of the Halifax Regional Municipality Pension Plan (appellant) v. Superintendent of Pensions for the Province of Nova Scotia, Joan Mahoney and Patricia Oldham (respondents)

(S.H. 222531A; 2005 NSSC 228)

Indexed As: Halifax Regional Municipality Pension Committee v. Superintendent of Pensions (N.S.) et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Moir, J.

August 19, 2005.

Summary:

The Halifax Regional Municipality Pension Committee charged a $500 fee for actuarial costs to persons who required calculations of export and import values for a transfer of pension under a reciprocal transfer agreement (RTA transfer). The matter was brought to the Superintendent of Pensions.

The Superintendent of Pensions ordered the Committee to cease charging the fee. The Committee appealed.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported 229 N.S.R.(2d) 344; 725 A.P.R. 344, allowed the appeal. The Committee claimed costs.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court awarded costs of $4,000 for fees, $473.84 for disbursements and $71.08 for HST on the disbursements.

Practice - Topic 6931

Costs - General principles - Discretion of court - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court departed from the applicable tariff where it could not produce a substantial but partial indemnity - In the present case, which involved the interpretation of s. 50(1) of the Pension Benefits Act (N.S.) and a pension plan, the unsuccessful party argued that costs should be $250 - The successful party said $4,050 - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court awarded $4,000 - This was fair given that fees for preparation could have been over $10,000 - See paragraphs 4 to 8.

Practice - Topic 7029

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Novel or important point - The Halifax Regional Municipality Pension Committee (the Committee) charged a $500 fee for actuarial costs to persons who required calculations of export and import values for a transfer of pension under a reciprocal transfer agreement - The appeal judge, on a successful appeal against a decision of the Superintendent of Pensions, ruled that the fee was permissible under s. 50(1) of the Pension Benefits Act (N.S.) because the transfer here was not a commuted value transfer for which fees were not permissible under s. 50(1) - The judge also ruled that the fee was authorized under the applicable pension plan - The Superintendent argued that costs should not follow the result because the case resolved a novel issue - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court rejected the argument - The issues were not so novel - Rather, they involved fundamental, if not rudimentary, principles of statutory and contractual interpretation - See paragraph 3.

Practice - Topic 7085

Costs - Party and party costs - Witness fees and costs of preparation for trial or appeal - Expert witness fee - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court disallowed an amount claimed by the successful party for its expert before the Superintendent of Pensions - See paragraph 9.

Practice - Topic 7134

Costs - Party and party costs - Disbursements - Photocopies or printing - The successful party sought $469.84 for photocopying at $0.28 per page - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the claim and said: "It has been practice for decades for law firms to charge clients for photocopy as a disbursement. One commonly sees twenty cents a page and more. In the absence of evidence showing this common practice to be unreasonable and in the absence of evidence that large bundles should have been sent to the printers, I would allow the photocopy disbursements as claimed" - See paragraphs 10 and 11.

Cases Noticed:

Williamson v. Williams et al. (1998), 223 N.S.R.(2d) 78; 705 A.P.R. 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Keddy v. Western Regional Health Board, [1999] N.S.J. No. 464 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Campbell v. Jones (2001), 197 N.S.R.(2d) 212; 616 A.P.R. 212 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Campbell-MacIsaac et al. v. Deveaux et al. (2005), 230 N.S.R.(2d) 304; 729 A.P.R. 304 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Hardman Group Ltd. et al. v. Alexander et al. (2003), 215 N.S.R.(2d) 280; 675 A.P.R. 280 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bank of Montreal v. Scotia Capital Inc./Scotia Capitaux Inc. et al. (2002), 211 N.S.R.(2d) 107; 662 A.P.R. 107; 2002 NSSC 274, consd. [para. 10].

Boyne Clarke v. Steel, [2002] N.S.J. No. 186 (Small Claims Ct.), consd. [para. 10].

Coleman Fraser Whittome & Parcells v. Canada, [2003] N.S.J. No. 272 (Small Claims Ct.), refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

Mr. Hugh H. Wright, for the appellant;

Ms. Catherine J. Lunn, for the respondent, Superintendent of Pensions;

Ms. Joan Mahoney, for herself;

Ms. Patricia Oldham, for herself.

This costs matter was heard by way of submissions made on May 17, 24 and 27, 2005, by Moir, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on August 19, 2005.