Date: 20030303

Docket: A-689-99

Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 108

BETWEEN:

                                                            LANCE OLMSTEAD

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                        - and -

                                          ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and

                                    CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

                                                                                                                                    Respondents

                                            ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]                This appeal against the Trial Division's summary judgment in favour of the Crown was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the bill of costs of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada (hereafter, the Respondent).

The Appellant's Position

[2]                The Appellant argued that this matter raised issues of retirement age of constitutional importance to all Canadians. The Appellant argued that costs were not allowed by the Trial Division or the Supreme Court of Canada relative to this matter and, given that costs were not discussed in the Federal Court of Appeal, they should be considered a mistake or an anomaly and assessed at a very nominal amount.

The Respondent's Position

[3]                The Respondent argued that this was a complicated matter involving three parties and complex constitutional issues. The Respondent noted that the parties agreed to bear their own costs in the Trial Division. The Respondent chose not to claim costs in the Supreme Court of Canada, but did so in Part IV of the Memorandum of Fact and Law and therefore costs of the appeal in this Court were properly awarded.

Assessment

[4]                The Court's reasons here conceded the importance of the constitutional issues, but still awarded costs. I think that Bow Valley Naturalists Society et al. v. Minister of Canadian Heritage et al. 2002 FCA 515, and Willard Wilson et al. v. Attorney General of Canada 2002 FCA 87 adequately set out my views on the relevance for costs of importance to the public and nominal allowances respectively. Rule 409 is permissive, but not mandatory, concerning Rule 400(3) factors which would include Rule 400(3)(c) and (h) (importance and the public interest respectively). I do not think any further consideration of Rule 400(3)(c) and (h) factors is warranted relative to the Appellant's interest. I allow the Respondent's bill of costs as presented at $2,691.26.

  

(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"

      Assessment Officer

Vancouver, B.C.

March 3, 2003

                                                FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                            APPEAL DIVISION

                           NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

    

DOCKET:                                          A-689-99

STYLE OF CAUSE:                         LANCE OLMSTEAD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

CANADA et al.

  

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

  

REASONS BY:                                 CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED:                                             March 3, 2003

    

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Armstrong Nikolich                                                                   for Appellant

Victoria, B.C.

Morris Rosenberg                                                                      for Respondents

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, ON