Ross v. Warden of Bowden Institution #3

Ross v. Warden of Bowden Institution #3
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2004-08-05
Neutral citation
2004 FC 1067
File numbers
T-2173-01
Decision Content
Date: 20040805
Docket: T-2173-01
Citation: 2004 FC 1067
BETWEEN:
ARTHUR ROSS
Respondent (Applicant)
and
THE WARDEN OF BOWDEN INSTITUTION # 3 and
THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS CANADA and
THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Applicants (Respondents)
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
CHARLES. E. STINSON
Assessment Officer
[1] The Applicant is a federal inmate who wished to raise privacy issues. The Court issued a number of orders, one of which struck the Applicant's application for judicial review with costs in favour of the Respondents, the Warden of Bowden Institution # 3 and the Commissioner of Corrections Canada (hereafter "the Respondents"). The Applicant's appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable, as well as adjustments thereto, for disposition in writing of the Respondents' bill of costs.
[2] The Respondents argued further to Industrial Milk Producers Association . v British Columbia (Milk Board) [1998] F.C.J. No. 537 (T.O.) that an order striking a proceeding with costs effectively allows the costs of the proceeding to date, including the application to strike. The Respondents relied upon Forest v. Canada (Attorney General) [2002] F.C.J. No. 713 (F.C.T.D.) and Henry v Canada, [1987] F.C.J. No. 307 (F.C.T.D.) to argue that neither the ability to pay nor the difficulty in collection should be factors in the consideration of costs. The Respondents asserted that certain of the Applicant's submissions should be disregarded because they are extremely derogatory and disrespectful to both courts. Essentially, the Applicant argued that extracting costs from an inmate was unfair.
Assessment
[3] My reaction to the Applicant's submissions is similar to that in paragraph [4] of Rolls-Royce plc v. Fitzwilliam, [2004] F.C.J. No. 626 (A.O.), i.e. effectively, the absence of any relevant representations on the part of the Applicant which could assist me in identifying issues and making a decision leaves the Respondents' bill unopposed in any rational fashion. I have considered the Respondents' bill of costs consistent with my approach in Rolls-Royce (supra) and allow it as presented at $1,320.00
(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"
Assessment Officer
Vancouver, B.C.
August 5, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2173-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Arthur Ross v. The Warden of Bowden Institution # 3 et al.
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS BY: Charles E. Stinson
DATED: August 5, 2004
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT
The Warden of Bowden Institution #3 et al.
Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
the Privacy Commissioner