Wright v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court headnote
Wright v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-02-28 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 88 File numbers A-537-00 Decision Content Date: 20020228 Docket: A-537-00 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 88 BETWEEN: BLAKE WRIGHT Appellant - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA 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. Although there are difficulties with the choice of certain fee items, the total amount claimed for fees could be arguable within the limit of the tariff. [2] The Respondent's Bill of Costs, presented at $2,314.55 is assessed and allowed at $2,314.55. (Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer Vancouver, B.C. February 28, 2002 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES …
Read full judgment
Wright v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-02-28 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 88 File numbers A-537-00 Decision Content Date: 20020228 Docket: A-537-00 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 88 BETWEEN: BLAKE WRIGHT Appellant - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA 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. Although there are difficulties with the choice of certain fee items, the total amount claimed for fees could be arguable within the limit of the tariff. [2] The Respondent's Bill of Costs, presented at $2,314.55 is assessed and allowed at $2,314.55. (Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer Vancouver, B.C. February 28, 2002 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-537-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: BLAKE WRIGHT -and Appellant THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS BY: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: February 28, 2002 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Zipp & Company for Appellant Coquitlam, B.C. Morris Rosenberg for Respondent Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca