Trottier and Bijouterie Armand Trottier Inc. v. Canada, (1987) 13 F.T.R. 263 (TD)

• Judge: Denault, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 23, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 13 F.T.R. 263 (TD)

Trottier v. Can. (1987), 13 F.T.R. 263 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Claude Trottier and Bijouterie Armand Trottier Inc. (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty The Queen

T-5972-82

Indexed As: Trottier and Bijouterie Armand Trottier Inc. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Denault, J.

April 21, 1987.

Summary:

A sea plane crashed killing two passengers, including the daughter of the pilot. The pilot commenced an action against the Federal Crown (Department of Transport) for damages. The pilot's company brought an action to recover lost revenue. The pilot alleged that the crash was a direct result of the Mirabel Airport's controller's failure to provide radar assistance and the controller distracted the pilot by getting him to change his radio frequencies to contact the proper control tower. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported 9 F.T.R. 94, dismissed the action. In taxing the bill of party and party costs, the taxing officer refused to allow certain expert witness costs. The Crown applied for review of the decision of the taxing officer.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application and referred the matter to the taxing officer for consideration pursuant to the directions of the court.

Practice - Topic 6929

Costs - General principles - Judicial review of orders of taxing officer - Time for - The Federal Court Rules, rule 346(2), provided that costs taxed by a taxing officer were subject to review by the Court upon application by a party dissatisfied with the taxation - Rule 337(5) gave a party 10 days after pronouncement of judgment to have the court reconsider the terms of a pronouncement where the pronouncement does not accord with the reasons or a matter has been over looked or accidently omitted - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that an application to review the decision of a taxing officer under rule 346(2) was not subject to the 10 day time limit in rule 337(5), nor to any deadline - See paragraphs 6 to 15.

Practice - Topic 7085

Costs - Party and party - Witness fees and costs of preparation for trial - Expert witness fees - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, reviewed a bill of costs taxed by the taxing officer wherein the officer disallowed costs for preparation of an expert opinion and the attendance in court of an expert witness and preparatory work - The court gave directions respecting what fees should be allowed by the taxing officer - See paragraphs 16 to 28.

Cases Noticed:

Vespoli et al. v. R., [1985] 2 C.T.C. 11, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 3; para. 13, footnote 8; para. 14].

R. v. Buchanan (1985), 7 C.P.R.(3d) 374, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 4].

Camp Robin Hood Ltd. v. R., [1982] 1 F.C. 19, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 5].

IBM Canada Ltd. v. Xerox et al., [1977] 1 F.C. 181, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Teledyne Industries v. Lido Industrial (1981), 56 C.P.R.(2d) 93, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 7].

Re Coles and Ravershear, [1907] 1 K.B. 1, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 9].

Aladdin Industries Inc. v. Canadian Thermos Products Ltd., [1973] F.C. 942, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 9; para. 14, footnote 10].

Small v. Canada (1986), 1 F.T.R. 159, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 337(5) [para. 5 et seq.]; rule 344(7) [para. 3 et seq.]; rule 346(1) [para. 5 et seq.]; rule 346(2) [para. 1 et seq.]; Tariff A, sect. 3 [para. 23 et seq. ]; sect. 4(1), sect. 4(2), sect. 5 [para. 5 et seq.]; Tariff B, sect. 2(2)(a) [para. 2 et seq.]; sect. 2(2)(b), sect. 3 [para. 5 et seq.].

Counsel:

Edouard Baudry, for the plaintiffs;

Michel Duchesne, Q.C., for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Lavery, O'Brien, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiffs;

Frank Iacobucci, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This application was heard in Montréal, Quebec, on March 23, 1987, before Denault, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on April 21, 1987: