Date: 20060815
Docket: A-403-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 277
BETWEEN:
DALE DUTCHAK
Applicant
and
TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE,
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION and
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF
COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1]
The
Applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Industrial
Relations Board. He also sought, within this proceeding, a stay of proceedings
in Federal Court of Appeal file A-505-03, and consolidation of both proceedings.
The Court’s order dated February 22, 2006 provided that the “applicant’s letter
dated February 3, 2006 is to be considered, at his own request, as a notice of
discontinuance under Rule 166, with costs of the application for judicial
review against the applicant.” I issued a timetable for written disposition of
the bill of costs of the Respondent, Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
[2]
The
respective submissions from the parties were similar to those led for the
assessments of costs in court file A-505-03, reported at Dutchak v. United
Transportation Union, [2006] F.C.J. No. 973 (A.O.). I have considered the
bill of costs here of Canadian Pacific Railway Company consistent with my
approach in said decision. I find said bill of costs reasonable in the circumstances
and allow it as presented at $1,096.46.
“Charles E. Stinson”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-403-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: DALE
DUTCHAK
Applicant
and
TEAMSTERS
CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE
et al.
Respondents
ASSESSMENT
OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E.
STINSON
DATED: August 15,
2006
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Dale Dutchak
|
ON HIS OWN BEHALF
|
Karen
L.Fleming
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Canadian Pacific Railway Company
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Caley Wray
Toronto, ON
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
United Transportation Union
|
Canadian
Pacific Railway Company
Legal Services
Department
Calgary, AB
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Canadian Pacific Railway Company
|