TEMPLATE > single-blogue.php
Legal costs: The Superior Court confirms which procedural rules apply

Legal costs: The Superior Court confirms which procedural rules apply

As we are now all aware, under the New Code of Civil Procedure, chapter C-25.01 (“N.C.C.P.”), which entered into force on January 1, 2016, the Tariff of judicial fees of advocates (the “Tariff”) has been rescinded (article 832 N.C.C.P.), the distinction between “honoraires judiciaires” and “honoraires extrajudiciaires” has been eliminated and article 339 N.C.C.P. now provides an exhaustive list of all legal costs that can be claimed by a successful party to an action.

Going forward, according to article 339 N.C.C.P., the only legal costs that can be claimed include:

  • court costs and fees, including disbursements incurred for the physical preparation of appeal briefs and memorandums;
  • professional fees and expenses for the service or notification of pleadings and documents;
     witness indemnities and allowances;
  •  interpreter fees;
  •  fees for registration in the land register or the register of personal and movable real rights;
  • costs related to taking and transcribing testimony filed in the court record, “if that was necessary”; and
    expert fees “related to the drafting of a report and, if applicable, preparing testimony, and remuneration for the time spent testifying and, to the extent useful, attending the trial”.

In the months leading up to January 1, 2016, many were concerned about the transition and how their costs awards would be treated going forward. This was especially true regarding all first instance judgments rendered before 2016 that were currently under appeal with large costs awards stemming from the application of the additional fee of 1% under s. 42 of the Tariff.

On January 12, 2016, in the decision of AlSammour c. Jmour, 2016 QCCS 46, the Honourable Serge Gaudet J.C.S. provided confirmation as to which set of rules apply to costs awards. Broadly, the case involved an action for unpaid wages and damages as well as an action for repayment of a loan following a breakdown in the relationship between the parties in connection with the failure of their café business. By way of a footnote at the end of the judgment, Justice Gaudet outlined the following comments with respect to legal costs awards in the context of this procedural transition:

Le Nouveau code de procédure civile étant d’application immédiate (sauf exceptions ici inapplicables), même si le procès a eu lieu et l’affaire a été prise en délibéré avant le 1er janvier 2016, le Tribunal ne peut plus accorder les dépens de l’ancien article 477 C.p.c, et doit plutôt accorder, s’il y a lieu, les frais de justice selon l’article 339 du Nouveau code de procédure civile. En effet, les dépens ou les frais de justice ne se gagnent pas au fur et à mesure que l’instance se déroule, mais plutôt par le jugement qui les accorde (cf. à cet égard le texte des articles 481 de l’ancien Code de procédure civile et 343 du Nouveau code de procédure civile). C’est donc le droit en vigueur au jour du jugement qui détermine le droit applicable en cette matière (cf. P. Roubier, Le droit transitoire, 2e édition, Dalloz, 1993, p. 563 : « La loi qui règle les formes et les effets du jugement est la loi du jour du jugement… »).

As such, it is clear (for now) that it is the procedural rules in force at the time of the judgment awarding the legal costs that govern.

Stay tuned to the latest legal news, signup to our blog.

Keywords
  • 1480 CCQ
  • 165(4) CCP
  • 358 CCP
  • 51 CCP
  • aboriginal law
  • abuse of procedure
  • abuse of process
  • abusive proceedings
  • access to justice
  • acquisitive prescription
  • advocacy
  • animal rights
  • apparent mandate
  • appeal
  • article 51 CPC
  • authority of law
  • Automobile Insurance Act
  • capacity
  • causation
  • certification
  • charter
  • chose jugée
  • class action authorization
  • code of ethics
  • comeback clauses
  • comity
  • conflict of interest
  • contempt of court
  • contract interpretation
  • contracts
  • contractual interpretation
  • corporate liability
  • costs
  • Court of Appeal
  • Crown immunity
  • crown liability
  • declinatory exceptions
  • discovery
  • disqualification of attorneys
  • duty of loyalty
  • duty to inform
  • employment
  • enforcement of judgments
  • evidence
  • family law
  • fiduciary duty
  • forum non conveniens
  • gift
  • Girouard
  • good faith
  • homologation
  • indemnité de départ
  • indirect damages
  • injunctions
  • inscription in appeal
  • insurance
  • interjurisdictional immunity
  • interlocutory injunction
  • international law
  • intervention
  • Joseph Raz
  • judicial review
  • jurisprudence
  • leave to appeal
  • legislative interpretation
  • liability
  • litigation privilege
  • mandate in case of incapacity
  • minimisation
  • mitigation
  • Motion to dismiss
  • new CCP
  • new evidence
  • news
  • notary
  • notice
  • objections
  • oppression remedies
  • personal liability of directors
  • pipeline
  • préavis
  • precedents
  • private international law
  • privilege
  • procedural fairness
  • procedure
  • production of documents
  • professional liability
  • professional secrecy
  • protective regime
  • provision for costs
  • provisional injunctions
  • reasonableness review
  • Ronald Dworkin
  • safeguard orders
  • Service
  • severance
  • shareholder oppression
  • solidary liability
  • standard form contracts
  • standard of review
  • state immunity
  • stay of proceedings
  • succession
  • tax
  • termination
  • theory of law
  • transactions
  • transitional law
  • trusts
  • tutorship
  • undue influence

  • Archives
  • March 2024 (1)
  • January 2024 (1)
  • November 2023 (1)
  • October 2023 (4)
  • September 2023 (2)
  • August 2023 (3)
  • May 2023 (4)
  • March 2023 (3)
  • February 2023 (1)
  • January 2023 (1)
  • November 2022 (2)
  • October 2022 (2)
  • September 2022 (2)
  • August 2022 (1)
  • July 2022 (2)
  • June 2022 (2)
  • April 2022 (5)
  • March 2022 (1)
  • February 2022 (3)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (1)
  • November 2021 (2)
  • September 2021 (2)
  • August 2021 (4)
  • July 2021 (1)
  • May 2021 (5)
  • April 2021 (3)
  • March 2021 (1)
  • February 2021 (1)
  • January 2021 (2)
  • December 2020 (3)
  • November 2020 (1)
  • October 2020 (4)
  • September 2020 (3)
  • August 2020 (3)
  • July 2020 (2)
  • June 2020 (2)
  • May 2020 (4)
  • April 2020 (2)
  • March 2020 (6)
  • February 2020 (3)
  • January 2020 (1)
  • November 2019 (2)
  • October 2019 (1)
  • September 2019 (2)
  • August 2019 (4)
  • July 2019 (1)
  • June 2019 (6)
  • May 2019 (2)
  • April 2019 (2)
  • March 2019 (4)
  • February 2019 (1)
  • December 2018 (3)
  • November 2018 (1)
  • October 2018 (3)
  • September 2018 (8)
  • August 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (3)
  • June 2018 (3)
  • May 2018 (2)
  • April 2018 (2)
  • March 2018 (2)
  • January 2018 (4)
  • December 2017 (2)
  • November 2017 (4)
  • October 2017 (4)
  • September 2017 (3)
  • August 2017 (4)
  • July 2017 (5)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • May 2017 (3)
  • April 2017 (2)
  • March 2017 (1)
  • February 2017 (3)
  • January 2017 (3)
  • December 2016 (2)
  • November 2016 (1)
  • October 2016 (1)
  • September 2016 (2)
  • August 2016 (3)
  • July 2016 (2)
  • June 2016 (2)
  • May 2016 (2)
  • April 2016 (1)
  • March 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • January 2016 (5)
  • December 2015 (2)
  • November 2015 (1)
  • October 2015 (1)
  • September 2015 (4)
  • August 2015 (5)
  • July 2015 (8)