IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           On August 15, 2014, I granted judgment in this case, dismissing the claim.  I granted the defendants their filing fees, and costs of attending the hearing, from Nanaimo including meals and accommodations.  As I am a Senior Judge, working only part time, and as I was not going to be available for several months to sort out any dispute over costs, I gave the parties 14 days to agree on the costs, and failing that, directed it to a Justice of the Peace to determine the costs. 

[2]           Unfortunately they were unable to do so, despite an offer of settlement on a reduced basis of $688.00 made by the defendants to the claimant, in writing.  On October 30, 2014, the Deputy District Registrar granted costs to the defendants of $1,020.22.  Mr Geekie, a lawyer, has returned this matter to me by way of application.  Mr Geekie, objects to that amount, primarily on the basis that the trial date was set for the defendant’s convenience, when they were returning for other matters to Kelowna. Therefore, in his view, mileage and the cost of ferry transportation should be reduced by 50%.  He also objects to them receiving any nominal amounts for accommodation, at $30.00 per person for two nights each, as they stayed two nights in a private home, parking for $6.00 for witness and defendant vehicle parking fees, on the day of trial.  Mr Geekie also objects to the defendants using 0.52 cents per km, the B.C. Government fee for mileage in 2011, and for two days per defendant at B.C. Government daily meal rates of $49.00 per person.  Mr Geekie says that only actual expenses may be taken into account.  He calculates thus that the defendant’ s costs for mileage, at a reduced rate, should be $128.40 for mileage, $88.00 for the ferry, $3.00 for parking, and nothing for meals or accommodation, and with filing fees, a total amount of $290.00 

[3]           The practice of giving nominal payments for accommodation at a private residence, B.C. Government rates for meals and mileage, is in accord with current practice of Registrars in Small Claims and Masters of the Supreme Court.  The argument that because the defendants were allowed to have a trial when it was convenient for them to return to Kelowna, does not mean their expenses should therefore be reduced by 50%.  The potential for costs in a legal action is a risk, which should always be taken into account when making a claim.

[4]           The purpose of the Small Claims Act and rules, as to claims and enforcement proceedings, is to have them resolved in a just, speedy, inexpensive and simple manner.  Accordingly I grant the defendants $1,020.22 for costs of the trial and a further nominal $200.00 for costs, to the defendants, for today’s telephone appearance, and telephone appearance before Judge Shaw, both after the order of October 30, 2014.  The total $1,220.22 is payable by the claimant to the defendants by March 20, 2015.