Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Winnicki
Source text
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Winnicki Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-09-27 Neutral citation 2007 FC 973 File numbers T-1309-05 Decision Content Date: 20070927 Docket: T-1309-05 Citation: 2007 FC 973 BETWEEN: CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Applicant and TOMASZ WINNICKI Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court found the Respondent in contempt, sentenced him to nine months' imprisonment and ordered him to pay solicitor-client costs. The Federal Court of Appeal reduced the term of his sentence, but left the award of costs undisturbed. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Applicant's bill of costs. [2] The Respondent did not file any materials in response to the Applicant'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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The bill of costs was prepared further to Column V of Tariff B. I am not convinced that Column V necessarily approximates solicitor-client costs, but its resultant amount may be appropriate in give…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Winnicki Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-09-27 Neutral citation 2007 FC 973 File numbers T-1309-05 Decision Content Date: 20070927 Docket: T-1309-05 Citation: 2007 FC 973 BETWEEN: CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Applicant and TOMASZ WINNICKI Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court found the Respondent in contempt, sentenced him to nine months' imprisonment and ordered him to pay solicitor-client costs. The Federal Court of Appeal reduced the term of his sentence, but left the award of costs undisturbed. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Applicant's bill of costs. [2] The Respondent did not file any materials in response to the Applicant'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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The bill of costs was prepared further to Column V of Tariff B. I am not convinced that Column V necessarily approximates solicitor-client costs, but its resultant amount may be appropriate in given circumstances: see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ahmed, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1427 (A.O.) [3] The Court's disposition of the initial motion for issuance of a show cause order reserved the matter of costs to the judge presiding over the contempt hearing. Contempt proceedings are criminal or quasi-criminal in nature and require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that the claimed amount of $18,788.81 is arguably reasonable for the work required by this proceeding and I allow it as presented. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1309-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: CHRC v. TOMASZ WINNICKI ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: September 27, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Joy Noonan Judith Parisien FOR THE APPLICANT n/a FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Philippe Dufresne CHRC, Litigation Services Division Ottawa, ON FOR THE APPLICANT Dominic Lamb Barrister & Solicitor Ottawa, ON FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
R v Brown
[2022] 1 SCR 506