BETWEEN:
and
o/a HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] The Court allowed this action with costs concerning excise tax in respect of grandfather clocks. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Plaintiff's bill of costs.
[2] The Defendant did not file any materials in response to the Plaintiff's materials. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Courts Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by having an assessment officer step away from a neutral position 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 amended bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed in the amended bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Plaintiff's amended bill of costs is allowed as presented at $5,879.30.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2203-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: HMQ v. 713460 ONTARIO LTD.
o/a HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:
|
Ms. Marie Crowley |
|
|
n/a |
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
|
|
n/a
|