In Denis v Truemner (2007), 84 OR (3d) 260 (Ont. S.C.J.), in dealing with the costs claimed in the action, Spies J. said:
[26] The disbursements claimed by the defendant are significant. They include airfare in the amount of $398.00 and online electronic legal research in the amount of $606.00. On its face, the amount for research is excessive as the defendant only referred to six cases. Airfare for counsel is not dealt with in the Tariff, although I have the power to award it if I find that this disbursement was reasonably necessary. I note the plaintiff claimed for mileage and parking in the amount of $477. I was advised that although both the plaintiff and defendant reside in Ottawa, the action was commenced in Toronto and the plaintiff requested in the claim that it be tried in Toronto. As it was reasonable for the defendant to retain Ottawa counsel, I find that that disbursement is reasonable. For these reasons I fix the defendant’s disbursements in the amount of $1,100.
How can we convince judges that good research might in fact be represented by counsel only referring to six cases rather than, say, the 25 or more he or she could possibly have found by using QL or some other database?
See http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2007/2007canlii292/2007canlii292.html
Respond: make a comment | read the 13 comments
Share:
Email
|
Save as PDF | Print
|
Bookmark & Share
|
|
More: in Miscellaneous | from Angela Swan
|
the count:
8233 posts | 11422 comments
recent comments  
Max Amsterdam once said: “Business is the art of extracting money from another man’s pocket without resorting to violence.” The purpose of having a written agreement between all … »»Practice There is good leagal content that doesn’t necessarily come in the neat packages that we usually look in. Though our commercial legal database subscriptions have linked, vetted, edited, and easily. […] »»Research When you need to collaborate on a document displayed on your screen, it’s great to have a colleague from down the hall come into your office and look over your … »»Technology
-
Available online today are four new chapters of the publication Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report, which explores the socio-demographic and economic circumstances of Canadian women in general.
-
The bill amends the Constitution Act, 1867 by readjusting the number of members and the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons.
-
-
Blueseed plans to buy a ship and turn it into a floating incubator anchored in international waters off the coast of California.
-
Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the flow of information out of Ottawa has slowed to a trickle.
-
-
"…the IPC has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a record is in the custody or control of a university in the context of an access request…"
-
-
John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. of Vancouver has been elected President for 2011-2012
-
Detailed results from 321 members.
These summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book.
More information.
-
Banks and Banking - Liability of banks to third parties - Negligence - General
The plaintiffs were the former shareholders of a company that failed. They sued the defendant bank alleging that it breached its contract with the company and the plaintiffs and breached a duty ...
-
Actions - Cause of action - General principles - New or extended cause of action - Opening of floodgates
The plaintiff and defendant worked at different branches of the same bank. The defendant’s common-law husband was the plaintiff’s ex-husband. Over a four year period, the defendant ...
-
Aliens - Definitions and general principles - Immigration consultants
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) had been designated as the sole regulatory body of immigration consultants in Canada from 2004 until June 2011. On June 30, 2011, Bill C-35 came into force, which significantly amended ...
-
Criminal Law - Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct - Public morals - Obscenity - Possession of child pornography
The accused was convicted of making child pornography available and two counts of possession of child pornography (see [2010] Sask.R. Uned. 197). Subsequently, he was sentenced ...
-
Criminal Law - Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices
Rowe was convicted by a jury of five offences. He appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed ...
-
Narcotic Control - Offences - Possession - General
The accused wished to access marijuana for medicinal purposes but did not have an authorization to possess marijuana issued under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations. He was notified that a package of marihuana addressed to him had been ...
-
Narcotic Control - General - Legislation - Exemptions - Medicinal marijuana
McCrady, who had an application pending under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) to possess and grow marijuana, was convicted of possession of marijuana (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), s. 4(1)). Hearn pleaded guilty ...
-
Criminal Law - Sentence - Trafficking in hashish or marijuana (incl. possession for purposes of trafficking)
The accused pleaded guilty to one count of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. He was sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment to be served intermittently and 11 months’ ...
-
Municipal Law - Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Imposition and collection of taxes or fees
Catalyst Paper Corp. operated a paper mill in the District of North Cowichan. Catalyst objected to the tax rate that it paid compared to residential ratepayers. In 2009, the ...
This is a listing of a few upcoming events in Canada of interest to lawyers, law students, legal librarians, and others involved in the practice of law.
Clicking on any event in the list below will give you access to more information and to links allowing you to see the full entry and to add the event to your own calendar.
Click this link for a fuller version of the TalkLaw/ParLoi calendar of events and for instructions as to how to add events and calendars to your own calendar.
|
You mean apart from the fact that the judge's comment might be factually wrong because that was for just the amount of time it took to find those 6 cases and it didn't take all that long? Some of the databases are that expensive.
You can't, in too many cases, for the oppoiste side of the reason we get things like this.
Wilson v. Bobbie, 2006 ABQB 22
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2006/2006abqb22/2006abqb22.html
[42] Since neither counsel cited the binding decisions of the Court of Appeal (or indeed, any authority at all), neither party is entitled to costs of this motion.
For those who care, go to the case and count the number of cases the judge listed that could have been mentioned, not to mention the texts that could have been mentioned.
There's this in Milsom v. Corporate Computers Inc., 2003 ABQB 609 (CanLII), perViet, J:
[7] The plaintiff is not entitled to a disbursement for legal research: using legal research techniques such as searching of electronic data bases or using legal researchers presumably reduces the fee for preparation that is already built into the tariff. These are techniques for lowering a lawyer’s costs, not for increasing them.
She goes on to cite these references on the matter of computer searches:
[14] On the issue of computer searches: Standquist v. Coneco Equipment 2000 ABCA 138 (CanLII), [2000] A.J. No. 554; 2000 ABCA 138 (C.A.); Stevenson & Côté, Civil Procedure Guide (1996) p. 1948; Civil Procedure Handbook 2002 p. 451; Lee et al v. Leeming (reflex-logo) reflex, (1985) 61 A.R. 18, at 19, (Q.B.); Argentia v. Warshawski (1990) 106 A.R. 222 (C.A.); Sidorsky v. C.F.C.N Communications Ltd. (reflex-logo) reflex, (1995), 27 Alta. L.R. (3d) 296 (Q.B.) at p. 304; Dornan Petroleum v. Petro‑Canada [1997] A.J. No. 21 (Q.B.); Lalli v. Chawla [1997] A.J. No. 457; 53 Alta.L.R. (3d) 121; 203 A.R. 27 (Q.B.) at para. 25; Kelly v. Lundgard (reflex-logo) reflex, (1997), 47 Alta. L.R. (3d) 184 (Q.B.); Atkinson v. McGregor 1998 ABQB 629 (CanLII), (1998), 66 Alta. L.R. (3d) 289 (Q.B.); Reid v. Stein 1999 ABQB 222 (CanLII), [1999] A.J. No. 533; [2000] 2 W.W.R. 349; 73 Alta.L.R. (3d) 311 (Q.B.); Standquist v. Coneco Equipment 2000 ABCA 138 (CanLII), [2000] A.J. No. 554; 2000 ABCA 138 (C.A.); Westco Storage Limited v. Inter‑City Gas Utilities Ltd (reflex-logo) reflex, [1988] 4 W.W.R. 396, (Man.Q.B.), at p. 407; Holmes (Re) (reflex-logo) reflex, [1991] A.J. No. 462; 80 Alta.L.R. (2d) 373; 121 A.R. 170; 7 C.B.R. (3d) 82; 2 P.P.S.A.C. (2d) 106 (Q.B.M.); Interclaim Holdings Ltd. v. Down, [2000] A.J. No. 327 (Q.B.), Kent, J. at para. 12; Vysek v. Nova Gas International Ltd. [2001] A.J. No. 1154 (Q.B.) Rawlins, J., at para. 293: Edmonton (City) v. Lovat Tunnel Equipment Inc. [2002] A.J. No. 1440 (Q.B) Lee, J. at para. 199: The Law of Costs, Mark M. Orkin, 2nd Edition, 17th Release
I think that the way in which clients are billed for on-line research does not always reflect well on the profession and I am certainly not opposed to assessment officers taking the view, as they do in Alberta (as Simon's comment indicates), that the cost of on-line research, like library research, pacing the floor or staring out into space seeking inspiration, and lots of other things should be considered as overhead and covered by the lawyer's hourly rate. I'm waiting to find the first firm that charges a client its pro rata share of the office rent and secretarial assistance, leaving aside the question of just how the calculations might be made. New software to identify overhead costs to be billed to the client is continually being sold to and used by law firms. These issues are quite separate from the point I was making.
Sorry, John, if I appeared to be deflecting from your point, which I take to be that 6 appropriate cases are better than a hundred scatter-shot judgments. And while I agree that QL etc. make the latter approach more likely in practice (what someone referring to the then new word processors called "greasing the skids of prolixity"), there's no necessary connection. I guess that since there are fewer of them, it might be easier to inculcate the "quality" veiw in judges than in the profession at large and then hope that the court influences practitioners. I can't say that I'm sanguine about the chances.
Simon
Don't hold your breath. The best description of what goes on in much of the practitioner world (in my experience) is GIGO. Remember the Richard Prior / Gene Wilder movie where one was blind and the other lame. The practice situation is worse. It's a quartet where the third person is deaf and the fourth mute. They're led by a mim-conductor who hasn't any useful knowledge about the subject in issue, or isn't able to pass it on if he or she does and, in any event, even if her or she had such knowledge, is not competent in any of the languages spoken or understood by the quartet.
That's the good news.
The bad new?
The conductor doesn't realize any of this.
I agree with all of the above comments, but I want to add another. QL and ecarswell are tools which, in my view, are necessary for currency and completeness and, when used in as part of an informed, strategic approach to proper legal research, are there to complement print legal research (not as a replacement or even supplement). It is frustrating that so many lawyers (and students, who of course have been introduced to these tools as free services) do approach computer research in the same "Google" approach many take to Internet research. (This is where those of us who handle research instruction have a challenge to meet.)
Also, as others have said, $600 can be incurred quite easily in firnding and ensuring the currency of 6 useful cases. Of course there are ways to reduce the hard costs in QL and ecarswell research, but, depending on the rate of the lawyer doing the research, these savings might be outweighed by additional time that may be spent.
When I used to do freelance legal research (as an independent researcher for law firms), I paid a flat rate fee for QL so I used to include in my invoices a small flat charge for computer searches (with the blessing of the Law Society of Alberta). This was arond a decade ago so I don't know if that approach still would work.
That should have been mime-conductor.
Here's a blatant example of how bad it is out in 'practice-land'.
There's at least a half-dozen, maybe more, cases released since March 2007 in which the lawyers have argued about factual causation, and the judges have written reasons dealing with factual causation issues, not mentioning the SCC's decision in Resurfice v Hanke 2007 SCC 7 and clearly argued and decided based on the case law predating Resurfice.
Anybody care to attempt to justify how that occurs, at least at the practitioner level?