BETWEEN:
and
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Assessment Officer
[1] The Plaintiff brought a statutory appeal of decisions by the Defendant concerning currency seized further to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (the Act) by way of this action. He subsequently discontinued this action after the Defendant notified him that a motion for summary judgment would be brought given the latter's admission of his breach of the Act. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Defendant's bill of costs presented further to Rule 402.
[2] Counsel for the Plaintiff indicated that he was unable to locate his client for instructions and therefore could not consent to the costs sought. He noted that the amount claimed was excessive and for a straightforward defence. 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.
[3] I examined each item claimed in the revised bill of costs within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed is generally arguable as reasonable for the circumstances of this action and is allowed as presented at $2,180.83.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-840-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: RAFAEL SHARHAR v. MNR
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:
|
Mr. Harvey A. Swartz
|
|
|
Mr. Richard Casanova
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Harvey A. Swartz Barrister & Solicitor Downsview, ON
|
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|