2010 QCCA 2185, 2010 QCCA 2185

Robert c. Raymor Industries 2010 QCCA 2185 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-020988-101 ( 540-17-003555-090 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: November 30, 2010 THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. PETITIONER ATTORNEY STÉPHANE ROBERT ABSENT RESPONDENTS ATTORNEY RAYMOR INDUSTRIES AP & C REVETEMENTS ET POUDRES VANCEES INC. RAYMOR NONATECH INC. GESTION RAYMOR INC. RAYMOR AEROSPACE INC. Mtre Ada Fan SEAL SEIDMAN

MOTION BY RESPONDENTS FOR REVISION OF A BILL OF COSTS Clerk: Annick Nguyen Court Room: RC.18 HEARING 9:35 Commencement of the hearing. Submission by Mtre Fan. 9:43 Suspension. 9:47 Resumption of the hearing. 9:48 BY THE JUDGE. Judgment – See page 3. Annick Nguyen Clerk JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The respondents Raymor Industries et al. have filed a motion, pursuant to

article 480, para. 2 C.C.P., asking for the revision of a bill of costs that was taxed on October 4, 2010, following the dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal brought by Stéphane Robert. [ 2 ] As presented to the presiding clerk, the bill of costs included an amount of $355.55 claimed as a disbursement for the transcript of the hearing before the judge of first instance. [ 3 ] The clerk did not allow this amount in his assessment of the matter under the Tariff of Judicial Fees of Advocates .

He explained as follows: "Bien qu'il n'apparaisse pas du dossier que cette transcription ait été utilisée à l'audition du 14/09/2010, ou qu'elle ait été exigé à l'intimée par la Cour, je suis de toute façon d'avis qu'il ne s'agit pas d'un débours taxable en vertu de l'article 56 du tarif". [ 4 ] The respondents submit that the amount should be allowed as the transcript was produced as an exhibit during the hearing. The transcript was necessary, they say, to apprise the judge in chambers fully as to the appearance of acquiescence to judgment of the appellant's former attorney.

This was the basis of the respondents' argument for dismissal of the motion for leave. [ 5 ] I am of the view that the clerk was correct in his

interpretation s. 56 of the Tariff as providing a limited basis for taxing the costs of transcripts where no factum in on record. [ 6 ] I had the benefit of a full pleading of the matter by the respondents, however, that the clerk may not have had when the bill of costs was first taxed before him. [ 7 ] In particular, the respondents argued before me that s. 12 of the Tariff can form the basis, as a rule of general application, for allowing for the transcript in question to be included in the bill of costs as an exhibit produced at the hearing.

[ 8 ] I note that in a letter, dated October 1, 2010, counsel for the appellant acknowledged that it was his understanding that the bill of costs should include the cost of the transcript in question. [ 9 ] On this basis, notwithstanding the fact that the clerk was correct in his reading of s. 56, I am respectfully of the view that the cost of the transcript should be included in the bill of costs. [ 10 ] I note further that the motion before me is not opposed and that counsel for the respondents has stated that she renounces her demand for costs on the motion.

FOR THESE REASONS, the undersigned, [ 11 ] ALLOWS the motion for revision of the bill of costs, without costs on the motion; [ 12 ] ORDERS that the bill be amended by adding an amount of $355.55; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the bill of costs be taxed for an amended total amount of $504.55. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A.