Rocco Galati denied all but $5K in costs for Nadon court challenge

The Toronto lawyer who helped sink the prime minister's 2013 Supreme Court pick has been denied full reimbursement for costs he incurred in the case. Rocco Galati asked for more than $68,000 in costs but was awarded $5,000 and now plans to appeal.

Federal Court says request for $68K in costs 'excessive and unwarranted'

Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati and his colleague applied to the Federal Court for costs incurred during their initial challenge of Marc Nadon's appointment to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday they began an appeal of a judgement that agreed their work was a valuable public service, but awarded them only a small lump sum. (Trevor Hagan/The Canadian Press)

The Toronto lawyer who helped sink Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 2013 Supreme Court pick has been denied full reimbursement for costs incurred for his initial Federal Court challenge.

Rocco Galati, whose challenge led to a Supreme Court decision that voided Marc Nadon's seat in March, went to Federal Court seeking more than $68,000 in costs, based on work performed by himself and the co-director of the Constitutional Rights Centre, Paul Slansky.

In a Nov. 20 decision, Justice Russel W. Zinn awarded the lawyers just $5,000.

Galati gave notice of his intention to appeal Wednesday, and said the judge's decision was a "slap in the face."

"This is an example of the Versaillian world we live in, where privilege reigns," Galati told CBC News in an interview Thursday. "We're either a mature country or we're not."

Federal Court of Appeal judge Marc Nadon was named to the Supreme Court by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Last March, the court ruled his appointment unconstitutional because he lacked the unique qualifications set out for the three Quebec seats. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
The application for costs relates not to the Supreme Court hearing, but to Galati's initial application to the Federal Court over the Nadon appointment. After Galati's action, the Harper government moved to change legislation to address concerns over the Quebec judge's qualifications and then referred the question to the Supreme Court.

Galati's case became moot when the Supreme Court found Nadon's appointment to be unconstitutional. But that doesn't mean he didn't incur business costs to prepare and argue it, Galati says.

'Disincentive' to challenge government

The lawyers who defended the government were paid handsomely, he points out, while he and his colleague had to pay for the challenge out of their own pockets. 

The costs were calculated based on a billing rate of $800 an hour. The pair together said this stage of the case required about 70 hours of work, something the judge agreed with the federal government respondents was "excessive and unwarranted."

Galati accepts that reimbursing costs may need to be limited to rare or narrow cases, but it's hard to think of a more exceptional case than the Nadon challenge, he said.

Galati argued that to "deny those costs constitutes a breach of the constitutional right to a fair and independent judiciary."

In his decision, Zinn agreed that "but for the applicants commencing this application, it was unlikely that the [Supreme Court] reference would have occurred."

"To that extent, one could argue that the applicants have done Canada a service and should not be out-of-pocket in so doing," the ruling says, in awarding only a $5,000 lump sum.

Not covering the legal costs for these kinds of cases is a disincentive for citizens to litigate against their government, Galati said. 

Comments

To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.

By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.