PRACTICE |
Costs |
AB Hassle v. Genpharm Inc.
T-2005-01
2004 FC 892, Layden-Stevenson J.
22/6/04
12 pp.
Motion for order providing directions to assessment officer--Judgment granting order prohibiting Minister of Health from issuing notice of compliance to respondents with respect to its 10 mg, 20 mg omeprazole capsules until after expiration of patents, awarding costs taxed on ordinary scale to Astra, Takeda against Genpharm--Specifically stating no costs awarded for or against Minister--Applicants seeking assessment of costs in accordance with highest end of column V of Tariff B or extension of time to bring motion under Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 397--Prerequisites for granting extension of time not met--Applicants not providing evidence of continuing intention to pursue requested relief--R. 397 motion out of time--Submission scale of costs not dealt with failed--Since costs awarded in order, cannot say issue of costs overlooked or accidentally omitted--Also, by virtue of r. 407, column III of table to Tariff B ordinary scale--Thus, order did specify scale--As to whether r. 403 permitting direction assessment of costs be on increased scale, Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v. Maple Leaf Meats Inc., [2003] 2 F.C. 451 (C.A.) standing for proposition where no specificity regarding order for costs, and no directions otherwise sought, default provision applies, and costs will be assessed at column III--Motion for directions to assess under different column, in substance, motion for variation--Purpose of r. 403 to obtain precision as to costs, not to vary order--Open to Astra, Takeda to appeal order--Regardless, factors under r. 400(3) considered--As to importance and complexity of issues, legal significance and complexity, including number of issues must be considered, not factual subject-matter--No novel issues of law raised--As record voluminous, greater precision regarding costs, within the column, warranted--Court directing costs should be at upper end of column III--Astra's request for directions to assessment officer to assess second counsel fees for attendance at hearing allowed as two counsel divided argument with respect to all four patents in issue--Takeda's request for second counsel fees denied as second counsel's presence found to be unnecessary--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 397, 400(3), 403, 407.