BETWEEN:
and
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Assessment Officer
[1] The Court dismissed with costs this appeal of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada related to liability by an Indian for taxes of income derived from fishing in coastal waters. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondents’ bill of costs.
[2] The Appellant did not file any materials in response to the Respondents’ 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.
[3] The bill of costs included a claim under counsel fee item 13(a) for preparation for hearing. As my findings in paragraph 10 of Gardner v. Canada (A.G.), [2008] F.C.J. No. 284 (A.O.) indicate that said fee item cannot be claimed for an appeal, but that something could be claimed under fee item 27, I will allow the claimed amount. There were other items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed in the Respondents’ bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $4,232.97.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-48-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: VAN DUMONT v. HMQ
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:
|
n/a |
(self-represented)
|
|
Ms. Nadine Taylor Pickering
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
n/a
|
(self-represented)
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, BC |