Vasarhelyi v. Canada
Court headnote
Vasarhelyi v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2008-04-10 Neutral citation 2008 FCA 134 File numbers A-179-06 Decision Content Date: 20080410 Docket: A-179-06 Citation: 2008 FCA 134 BETWEEN: BALINT VASARHELYI Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] A copy of these reasons is filed in Federal Court of Appeal file A-180-06 and applies there accordingly. The Appellant’s failure to perfect the appeal book as prescribed by interlocutory order resulted in dismissals with costs of these appeals from decisions of the Tax Court of Canada. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the respective bills of costs of the Respondent. [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 each bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The total amounts claimed are arguable as reasonable within the limits of the respective awards of costs and are allowed as presented at $789.…
Read full judgment
Vasarhelyi v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2008-04-10 Neutral citation 2008 FCA 134 File numbers A-179-06 Decision Content Date: 20080410 Docket: A-179-06 Citation: 2008 FCA 134 BETWEEN: BALINT VASARHELYI Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] A copy of these reasons is filed in Federal Court of Appeal file A-180-06 and applies there accordingly. The Appellant’s failure to perfect the appeal book as prescribed by interlocutory order resulted in dismissals with costs of these appeals from decisions of the Tax Court of Canada. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the respective bills of costs of the Respondent. [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 each bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The total amounts claimed are arguable as reasonable within the limits of the respective awards of costs and are allowed as presented at $789.99 (A-179-06) and $762.17 (A-180-06). “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-179-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: BALINT VASARHELYI v. HMQ ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: April 10, 2008 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT (self-represented) Ms. Lynn Burch 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