The Consumer Proposal Administrator brought a motion to tax its Final Statement of Receipts and Disbursements after the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) issued a negative comment letter.
The OSB objected to the Administrator claiming legal costs for a prior Revival Motion, arguing it exceeded the tariff in Rule 129 of the Bankruptcy Rules.
The court found that issue estoppel applied because the OSB had notice of the Revival Motion, did not object, and did not appeal the resulting order granting costs.
However, because the Administrator's own incorrect assumption about the deceased debtor's estate caused the default necessitating the Revival Motion, the court reduced the Administrator's tariff fees to offset the legal costs, approving a total of $4,760.40.
