Teneycke v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court headnote
Teneycke v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-12-14 Neutral citation 2004 FC 1737 File numbers T-830-03 Decision Content Date: 20041214 Docket: T-830-03 Citation: 2004 FC 1737 BETWEEN: RONALD ARTHUR TENEYCKE Applicant - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondent's bill of costs. [2] The Applicant did not file any materials in response to the Respondent's materials. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Court Rules, 1998 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, ie. 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. 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 amended bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $2,150.14. (Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer Vanco…
Read full judgment
Teneycke v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-12-14 Neutral citation 2004 FC 1737 File numbers T-830-03 Decision Content Date: 20041214 Docket: T-830-03 Citation: 2004 FC 1737 BETWEEN: RONALD ARTHUR TENEYCKE Applicant - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondent's bill of costs. [2] The Applicant did not file any materials in response to the Respondent's materials. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Court Rules, 1998 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, ie. 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. 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 amended bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $2,150.14. (Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer Vancouver, BC December 14, 2004 FEDERAL COURT NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-830-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: RONALD ARTHUR TENEYCKE - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: December 14, 2004 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Zipp & Company Coquitlam, BC for Applicant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada for Respondent
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca