IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: | Reed v. Amell, |
| 2014 BCSC 1613 |
Date: 20140825
Docket: M113476
Registry:
Vancouver
Between:
Wendy Reed [nee
Larsen]
Plaintiff
And
Alana Dawn Amell
Defendant
And
Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia
Third
Party
Before:
District Registrar Nielsen
Reasons for Decision
Counsel for the Plaintiff: | S.T. Cope |
Counsel for the Defendant: | No Appearance |
Counsel for the Third Party | K.S. Johal |
Place and Date of Hearing: | Vancouver, B.C. August 15, 2014 |
Place and Date of Decision: | Vancouver, B.C. August 25, 2014 |
introduction
[1]
This is an assessment of costs with respect to a motor vehicle accident
that occurred on August 16, 2009, when the plaintiff was side-swiped and
subsequently rear-ended as she was pulling over to exchange particulars.
Liability was admitted. Trial was scheduled to take place January 20 to 29,
2014. The case settled on January 6, 2014, for $200,000 plus taxable costs and
disbursements. A complicating factor was the existence of an unrepresented
defendant.
[2]
Counsel have agreed on many of the tariff items and applicable amounts,
and most of the disbursements. What follows is a discussion of those tariff
items and disbursements that remain in dispute.
tariff items
[3]
A Registrar is to allow tariff fees with respect to work that was proper
or reasonably necessary to the proceeding and must consider Civil Rule 1-3, the
object of the Rules.
[4]
The issue of which fees and outlays claimed should be allowed must be
determined objectively. In fixing the number of units for items where a minimum
and maximum number of units is allowed, the Registrar is to allow:
(a)
the minimum unit for matters upon which little time should ordinarily
have been spent; and
(b)
the maximum unit for matters upon which a great deal of time should
ordinarily have been spent.
[5]
Registrars must have regard to the particular circumstances of the
proceeding in which the costs are claimed when deciding how many units within the
prescribed range should be allowed.
[6]
The plaintiff claims 2 units for a case planning conference which took
place on February 29, 2012. At the case planning conference, the plaintiff
obtained an order removing the litigation from the fast track process under
Civil Rule 15-1.
[7]
In addition, the trial was set down for hearing for eight days; the
third party was ordered to prepare and deliver a list of documents in Form 21
to counsel for the plaintiff by March 2, 2012. The unrepresented defendants
approval as to form was dispensed with.
[8]
Two units are claimed with respect to the case planning conference and 2
units are awarded.
[9]
The plaintiff claims 2 units for the preparation for attendance at the
trial management conference on November 4, 2013. The plaintiff claims 2 units
for attendance. I am advised by counsel that the conference took one and a half
days. One unit is awarded.
[10]
Plaintiffs counsel has requested 2 units under item 14 for preparation
of a Notice to Admit dated December 19, 2014. The Notice to Admit contains
three paragraphs and six pages of chiropractic records. One unit is awarded.
[11]
Finally, units are requested with respect to preparation to attend the
assessment of costs, attendance at the assessment, and travel to the
assessment. The assessment of costs took a half day within the context of the
provisions in Appendix B.
[12]
One unit is awarded for tariff item 29, the preparation to attend the
assessment of costs; 2 units are awarded under tariff item 30 for attendance at
the costs assessment; and, 2 units are awarded under tariff item 41 for travel
to the assessment of costs.
[13]
All other tariff items are agreed as to item and amount.
disbursements
[14]
In Turner v. Whittaker, 2013 BCSC 712, the applicable legal
principles were summarized by Master MacNaughton as follows:
[5] Counsel were also able to agree on the following
legal principles which are applicable on an assessment of disbursements:
1. Rule 14-1(5) requires an assessing officer to
determine which disbursements were necessarily or properly incurred in the
conduct of a proceeding and to allow a reasonable amount for those
disbursements.
2. The consideration of whether a disbursement was
necessarily or properly incurred is case-and circumstance-specific and must
take into account proportionality under Rule 1-3. (Fairchild v. British
Columbia (Vancouver Coastal Health Authority), 2012 BCSC 1207).
3. The time for assessing whether a disbursement was
necessarily or properly incurred is when the disbursement was incurred not with
the benefit of hindsight. (Van Daele v. Van Daele, 56 B.C.L.R. 176 (SC)
revd 56 B.C.L.R. 178 at para. 4 (CA))
4. A necessary disbursement is one which is
essential to conduct litigation; a proper one is one which is not necessary but
is reasonably incurred for the purposes of the proceeding. (McKenzie v.
Darke, 2003 BCSC 138, para. 17-18)
5. The role of an assessing officer is not to second
guess a competent counsel doing a competent job solely because other counsel
might have handled the matter differently. (McKenzie v. Darke, 2003 BCSC
138, para. 21)
[15]
Dealing with each disbursement as it appears on the bill, the first is
in regards to Registry fees in the amount of $200 to file a Notice of Civil
Claim under Part 7, the no-fault provisions, and also a claim for $80 to file
the Appointment to assess costs. Agent fees are also claimed in regards to both
these disbursements. To cost of filing the Part 7 Writ was $7.00 and the
Notice to Assess Costs was $7.00.
[16]
The third party objects to the costs of filing the Part 7 claim on the
basis that it relates to a separate proceeding. The third party refers to Muller
v. Workman et al., 2004 BCSC 90, wherein Master Patterson stated:
[15] With respect, I disagree with the result attained
by District Registrar Sainty. The authority to which she referred is not
authority for the proposition that disbursements in a Part 7 action are
included in the disbursements for a tort action. There is no provision in the
Rules to include disbursements in another proceeding. A registrar, or master
sitting as a registrar, on the assessment of a bill of costs is governed
entirely by the order of the court and the Rules of Court to assess those
costs.
[16] It is worth pointing out that this case is not the
standard motor vehicle action defended by the Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia. The suit here was against the cyclist and his father. Neither were
insured through a policy of automobile insurance.
[17] There is no provision
in the consent order in this proceeding for Part 7 costs or disbursements to be
added in to this bill of costs. Hence the disbursements are disallowed.
[17]
The Part 7 Writ was filed on April 23, 2012.
Counsel for the plaintiff submits that had the matter gone to trial without a
Part 7 Writ having been filed and a no-fault claim preserved, ICBC would have
claimed a deduction. Here, the Part 7 claim was filed to preserve the
plaintiffs rights under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act to seek (and be
reimbursed for) treatment related to the accident.
[18]
The Part 7 action was therefore necessary and
adjunct to this litigation. But for the defendants actions, which caused the
accident, the plaintiff would not have had to commence the Part 7 action to
preserve her rights. Accordingly, I will allow the $200 cost to file the Notice
of Civil Claim under Part 7 and the agents fees of $7.00 are allowed.
[19]
Both the $80 Registry fee and the agent fee of
$7.00 to set the assessment of the bill of costs are also allowed.
Photocopying
[20]
The plaintiff claims the costs of photocopying
with respect to the binders and documents related to the costs assessment. The
pages were counted at 708. A claim of $125 is advanced, which, at ¢25 per page, would equate with 500 pages.
[21]
As explained in Sovani v. Jin, 2006 BCSC
855, the assessment of the reasonableness of photocopying charges is not an
arithmetical exercise but rather requires consideration of what is reasonable
in the circumstances of the action. It has been described as a rough and
ready calculation.
[22]
The amount claimed is reasonable and incorporates
a deduction. The $125 disbursement claimed is allowed.
MRI costs
[23]
The plaintiff has claimed a total of $3,378.43
related to radiology costs. The plaintiff had MRIs done both to the right wrist
and right shoulder. Plaintiffs counsel had initially offered to fund the
assessment of the MRI to the right wrist but that was initially rejected by the
plaintiffs general practitioner, Dr. Frayne. However, as the plaintiffs
complaints became chronic and persistent, Dr. Frayne made a specialist
referral to Dr. Faverro and also endorsed an MRI referral.
[24]
Dr. Faverro, the treating expert, reviewed
the MRI reports and suggested that the plaintiff return in September 2011 for a
clinical and radiographic review.
[25]
Plaintiffs counsel emphasizes that Dr. McKenzie,
the treating specialist, also wanted MRIs to be done in order to properly
assess the plaintiff. He stated: I would suggest that she undergo a plain
x-ray and motion study of the wrist. That includes an AP and lateral view of
the wrist, as well as lateral views of the wrist inflexion and extension and AP
views of the wrist and radio deviation in all of deviation. Dr. McKenzie
further stated: in my opinion, she should undergo an MRI arthrogram of the
right shoulder. She may need further treatment depending on whether or not her
symptoms improve or not.
[26]
A complicating factor was that the plaintiff
moved out of the province of British Columbia to Alberta in March 2011. Plaintiffs
counsel advises that because the plaintiff was no longer a British Columbia
resident, and had not been for a year, she was not entitled to coverage under
the British Columbia public healthcare system.
[27]
Defence counsel questions the costs of the
plaintiff coming to British Columbia for the MRI assessments, the issue being
why not have them done in Alberta. Plaintiffs counsel advises that the costs
associated with having the MRIs done in Alberta, in conjunction with bringing
radiological experts to British Columbia to give evidence would have been too
expensive.
[28]
Plaintiffs counsel advised that once travel
time is incorporated into the mix, an out-of-province expert could have cost
four days worth of cancellation costs. This, in turn, would have led to the
out-of-province expert costs being challenged on the basis that it would have
been cheaper to enlist local experts.
[29]
I find that the MRIs were properly incurred. The
cost in the amount of $3,378.43 is allowed.
Travel Expenses
[30]
The plaintiff travelled from Alberta to British
Columbia in order to be assessed by Dr. McKenzie. The costs associated
with that travel were two WestJet flights in the amount of $172.61 and $177.58.
There is a further WestJet flight in the amount of $455.61 that was incurred in
order to undergo a number of further medical appointments which included the
right shoulder arthrogram on March 19, 2012 and wrist X-rays.
[31]
I find that the travel costs associated with the
medical appointments were necessary and properly incurred in the conduct of the
proceeding and those disbursements are allowed.
[32]
Finally, the remaining disbursement in issue was
the cost of conduct money which was not returned by two witnesses in the amount
of $80. Counsel for the plaintiff advises that he requested the return of the
conduct money but simply was not successful in getting the money back.
[33]
This disbursement is not seriously contested.
Conduct money is required to compel the attendance of those witnesses required
to attend a trial. The disbursement in the amount of $80 is allowed.
conclusion
[34]
If the parties require a certificate, they can
submit one, with the signatures of counsel for the plaintiff and the third
party. The unrepresented defendant did not attend and therefore her signature
is dispensed with.
District Registrar Nielsen