Pugh v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services)
Source text
Pugh v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-08-23 Neutral citation 2007 FC 851 File numbers T-1059-05 Decision Content Date: 20070823 Docket: T-1059-05 Citation: 2007 FC 851 BETWEEN: BARRY K. PUGH Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This application for judicial review of a decision of the Public Service Commission Appeal Board confirming the screening of the Applicant out of a job competition was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's bill of costs. [2] The Applicant 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. [3] The Respondent claimed an item 4 (counsel fee) of $480.00 and a disbursement for $45.00 associated with a motion to remove certain respondents. The consent order was silent on costs. I disallow these two…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Pugh v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-08-23 Neutral citation 2007 FC 851 File numbers T-1059-05 Decision Content Date: 20070823 Docket: T-1059-05 Citation: 2007 FC 851 BETWEEN: BARRY K. PUGH Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This application for judicial review of a decision of the Public Service Commission Appeal Board confirming the screening of the Applicant out of a job competition was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's bill of costs. [2] The Applicant 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. [3] The Respondent claimed an item 4 (counsel fee) of $480.00 and a disbursement for $45.00 associated with a motion to remove certain respondents. The consent order was silent on costs. I disallow these two amounts further to my conclusion in Balisky v. Canada (Minister of Natural Resources), [2004] F.C.J. No. 536 (A.O.) at para. 6, and Aird v. Country Park Village Properties (Mainland) Ltd., [2005] F.C.J. No. 1426 (A.O.) at para 10. There were other items which might have attracted disagreement, but their total amount is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Respondent's bill of costs, presented at $3,435.95, is assessed and allowed at $2,910.95. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1059-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: BARRY K. PUGH v. THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPERANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: August 23, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPLICANT Mr. Alexandre Kaufman FOR THE RESPONDENTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: n/a FOR THE APPLICANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80