A few moments ago the deputy Registrar's for the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Pietrangelo, 2008 ONCA 547 was released. The importance of the decision is that it upholds a payment well in excess of legal aid rates for a court appointed amicus.
The Registrar ruled:
The crown submitted that when he agreed to take carriage of the file, Mr. Doucette was aware that the "policy" of the crown was to pay legal aid rates in such circumstances. However, Mr. Doucette, even though aware of the position of the crown with respect to payment at legal aid rates, accepted the file based on the decisions in R. v. Barton, R. v. George, and R. v. McKenzie. In those cases, the deputy registrar held that the clear wording of s 684 (3) of the Code did not limit the fees paid to court appointed counsel or amicus curiae to the legal aid rate, or any other rate unilaterally determined by a policy of the Crown. Indeed the very wording of that provision supports a conclusion that the rate is to be agreed on by the parties or failing agreement, fixed by the registrar in consideration of the circumstances of each case.
...
14. I agree that this case was a complex and difficult one, and do not feel that the hourly rates submitted by Mr. Doucette for his counsel work are unreasonable in the circumstances, given his general expertise and appellate experience in such matters. I will therefore tax Mr. Doucette's hourly rate, as requested, at $235.00 per hour and direct that the Attorney General pay Mr. Doucette's fees in full.
No comments:
Post a Comment