James Tumbridge

In an addendum on costs following an appeal, the Court of Appeal determined the appropriate disposition of costs.

The court awarded costs only to the respondent Guardian, Wasserman Arsenault, denying costs to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy because its role was minor and duplicative.

The court rejected the respondents' request for full indemnity based on their low negotiated hourly rates, fixing costs on a partial indemnity scale at $30,000 all inclusive.

The costs were apportioned 75% against the appellant Rumanek & Cooper and 25% against the appellant C.I.B.C., based on the number and complexity of the issues relating to each.

The appellants, a former trustee in bankruptcy and a bank, appealed a decision determining several questions of law regarding the administration of summary bankruptcy estates.

The former trustee sought fees in excess of the prescribed tariff for extraordinary work performed, while the bank sought priority for funds advanced to keep the bankrupt estates' administration running.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the court has no jurisdiction to award trustee fees in excess of the statutory tariff for summary administration estates.

The court also affirmed that any withdrawals for overhead must be credited against the trustee's fees, that the Guardian appointed by the Superintendent has priority over the former trustee for its fees, and that any shortfall in the consolidated trust account must be borne by the fee claimants rather than the creditors.