Nussey v. Canada
Court headnote
Nussey v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-04-29 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 164 File numbers A-687-99 Decision Content Date: 20020429 Docket: A-687-99 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 164 BETWEEN: ARNOLD MURRAY NUSSEY and GEORGE ALFRED NUSSEY, Executors of the Estate of the Late Arnold William Nussey Appellants - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Respondent was awarded costs of this appeal. The Appellant did not respond to notice of the timetable issued for written disposition of the Respondent's bill of costs. The Federal Court Rules, 1998, do not contemplate a litigant, having proper notice of an assessment of costs and choosing not to participate, as was the case here, benefiting by an assessment officer abdicating 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, i.e. those outside the authority of the judgment and the tariff. I examined each item claimed in the Respondent's bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. [2] The Respondent's bill of costs, presented at $1,503.60, is assessed and allowed at $1,503.60. (Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer Vancouver, B.C. April 29, 2002 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-687-99 STYLE OF CAUSE: ARNOLD MURRAY NUSSE…
Read full judgment
Nussey v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-04-29 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 164 File numbers A-687-99 Decision Content Date: 20020429 Docket: A-687-99 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 164 BETWEEN: ARNOLD MURRAY NUSSEY and GEORGE ALFRED NUSSEY, Executors of the Estate of the Late Arnold William Nussey Appellants - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Respondent was awarded costs of this appeal. The Appellant did not respond to notice of the timetable issued for written disposition of the Respondent's bill of costs. The Federal Court Rules, 1998, do not contemplate a litigant, having proper notice of an assessment of costs and choosing not to participate, as was the case here, benefiting by an assessment officer abdicating 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, i.e. those outside the authority of the judgment and the tariff. I examined each item claimed in the Respondent's bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. [2] The Respondent's bill of costs, presented at $1,503.60, is assessed and allowed at $1,503.60. (Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer Vancouver, B.C. April 29, 2002 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-687-99 STYLE OF CAUSE: ARNOLD MURRAY NUSSEY and GEORGE ALFRED NUSSEY, Executors of the Estate of the Late Arnold William Nussey Appellants - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS BY: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: April 29, 2002 SOLICITORS OF RECORD Wilson Walker Hochberg Slopen for Appellants Windsor, Ontario Morris Rosenberg for Respondent Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca