Aasland v. Canada
Source text
Aasland v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-12-21 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 412 File numbers A-3-04 Decision Content Date: 20071221 Docket: A-3-04 Citation: 2007 FCA 412 BETWEEN: BJARNE AASLAND Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] After a Notice of Status Review and certain orders and directions permitting the Appellant to perfect his materials concerning his appeal of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, the Court dismissed his appeal with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's bill of costs. [2] The Appellant 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 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The amount claimed ($353.90 for the transcript of the proceeding in the Tax Court of Canada) is reasonable in these circumstances. As requested, I add an allowance for counsel fee item 26 (assessment of costs) of $240.00 (the mini…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Aasland v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-12-21 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 412 File numbers A-3-04 Decision Content Date: 20071221 Docket: A-3-04 Citation: 2007 FCA 412 BETWEEN: BJARNE AASLAND Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] After a Notice of Status Review and certain orders and directions permitting the Appellant to perfect his materials concerning his appeal of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, the Court dismissed his appeal with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's bill of costs. [2] The Appellant 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 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The amount claimed ($353.90 for the transcript of the proceeding in the Tax Court of Canada) is reasonable in these circumstances. As requested, I add an allowance for counsel fee item 26 (assessment of costs) of $240.00 (the minimum in the available range) leaving the Respondent's bill of costs assessed and allowed at $593.90. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-3-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: BJARNE AASLAND v. HMQ ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: December 21, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT (self-represented) Penny L. Piper Jeff Pniowsky FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca
Administration des aéroports régionaux d’Edmonton c. Thibodeau
2024 CAF 196