Nguyen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Source text
Nguyen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2009-04-27 Neutral citation 2009 FC 420 File numbers T-2032-06 Decision Content Date: 20090427 Docket: T-2032-06 Citation: 2009 FC 420 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] BETWEEN: THI THUY NGUYEN Applicant and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS ASSESSMENT OFFICER JOHANNE PARENT [1] On December 6, 2007, the Court dismissed with costs the application for judicial review to review the legality of a decision by the respondent. Instructions were sent to the parties on December 18, 2008, which confirmed the assessment of the respondent’s bill of costs without personal appearance of the parties, as well as the time provided for the parties to file written representations. Representatives for the respondent filed an affidavit in support of their bill of costs within the time allowed. Although the applicant was served the instructions dated December 18, 2008, as well as the respondent’s bill of costs and affidavit of costs by registered mail and fax, no written representations were received, not even an application for an extension of time to do so. The assessment of the bill of costs will therefore be conducted, despite his lack of challenge. [2] The number of units claimed under items 2 (preparation and filing of the respondent’s record), 13 (preparation for hearing), 14 (attendance at Court), 25 (services rendered after judgment) a…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Nguyen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2009-04-27 Neutral citation 2009 FC 420 File numbers T-2032-06 Decision Content Date: 20090427 Docket: T-2032-06 Citation: 2009 FC 420 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] BETWEEN: THI THUY NGUYEN Applicant and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS ASSESSMENT OFFICER JOHANNE PARENT [1] On December 6, 2007, the Court dismissed with costs the application for judicial review to review the legality of a decision by the respondent. Instructions were sent to the parties on December 18, 2008, which confirmed the assessment of the respondent’s bill of costs without personal appearance of the parties, as well as the time provided for the parties to file written representations. Representatives for the respondent filed an affidavit in support of their bill of costs within the time allowed. Although the applicant was served the instructions dated December 18, 2008, as well as the respondent’s bill of costs and affidavit of costs by registered mail and fax, no written representations were received, not even an application for an extension of time to do so. The assessment of the bill of costs will therefore be conducted, despite his lack of challenge. [2] The number of units claimed under items 2 (preparation and filing of the respondent’s record), 13 (preparation for hearing), 14 (attendance at Court), 25 (services rendered after judgment) and 16 (assessment of costs) are allowed as requested. The expenses incurred by the respondent are justified by affidavit and are considered necessary and reasonable costs for the conduct of the case. They are therefore allowed in the total amount of $1,151.28. [3] The respondent’s bill of costs is allowed in the amount of $3,941.28. An assessment certificate will be issued for this amount. “Johanne Parent” Assessment Officer Toronto, Ontario April 27, 2009 FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2032-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: THI THUY NGUYEN v. MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ASSESSMENT OF COSTS ON FILE WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: TORONTO, ONTARIO ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS: ASSESSMENT OFFICER JOHANNE PARENT DATED: APRIL 27, 2009 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: No written representations FOR THE APPLICANT Jacques Mimar FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Gerardo Nicolo Laval, Québec FOR THE APPLICANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80