 Printer-Friendly Page
BETWEEN: and
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Assessment Officer [1] A copy of these Reasons is filed today in Federal Court of Appeal file A-17-04 (Ronald Hakem v. Her Majesty the Queen) and applies there accordingly.
[2] These appeals, addressing a decision of the Tax Court of Canada concerning the tax liability of business partners, were dismissed with one set of costs in the lead file A-16-04. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent’s bill of costs.
[3] The Appellants did not file any materials in response to the Respondent’s materials. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Courts Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by an assessment officer stepping away from a position of neutrality to act as the litigant’s advocate in challenging given items in a bill of costs. However, the assessment officer cannot certify unlawful items, i.e. those outside the authority of the judgment and the tariff. I examined each item claimed in the bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the amount claimed in total in the bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Respondent’s bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $2,982.00.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-16-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: WILLIAM DOCHERTY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
