On one side, judges say that
electronic research disbursements really should be considered part of the overhead of a firm, and therefore is really part of the hourly rate charged by the lawyers (Nebete Inc. v. Sanelli Foods Ltd., [1999] O.J. No. 859):
Not exact matches
As was held in Aram Systems Ltd v Novatel Inc (supra), I consider
disbursements for
electronic legal
research similar to
disbursements for photocopying.
In consideration of the fact that no clear justification has been provided to substantiate the amount claimed and the fact that I regard legal computerized
research, unless otherwise proven, as office overhead expense as it compares to the subscription services law firms library had to maintain in the past and which were also considered office overhead, the
disbursements claimed for
electronic legal
research are not allowed.
I would not allow a
disbursement charge for «
electronic legal
research» any more than I would allow a
disbursement charge for subscribing to the O.R.'s.
[7] The plaintiff is not entitled to a
disbursement for legal
research: using legal
research techniques such as searching of
electronic data bases or using legal researchers presumably reduces the fee for preparation that is already built into the tariff.
Extensively
researched and retrieved
disbursement vouchers using
electronic Database Access (EDA).