Oriji v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court headnote
Oriji v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-04-04 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 139 File numbers A-306-04 Decision Content Date: 20070404 Docket: A-306-04 Citation: 2007 FCA 139 BETWEEN: HENSLEY ORIJI Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal from a dismissal by the Federal Court of an application for judicial review of an Investigator's decision concerning the rescinding of an offer of employment to the Appellant in the Public Service was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's revised 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. I examined each item claimed in the revised bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. In the circumstances of this litigation, the total amount claimed in the revised bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Respo…
Read full judgment
Oriji v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-04-04 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 139 File numbers A-306-04 Decision Content Date: 20070404 Docket: A-306-04 Citation: 2007 FCA 139 BETWEEN: HENSLEY ORIJI Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal from a dismissal by the Federal Court of an application for judicial review of an Investigator's decision concerning the rescinding of an offer of employment to the Appellant in the Public Service was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's revised 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. I examined each item claimed in the revised bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. In the circumstances of this litigation, the total amount claimed in the revised bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Respondent asks for maximum Rule 408(3) costs of $720.00 (6 units at $120 per unit) for the assessment of costs. Here, I allow only the minimum 2 units ($240.00). The Respondent's revised bill of costs, presented at $2,372.15 is assessed and allowed at $2,612.15. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-306-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: HENSLEY ORIJI v. AGC ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: April 4, 2007 APPEARANCES: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT Michael Roach 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