Elomari v. Canada (National Research Council)
Source text
Elomari v. Canada (National Research Council) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-07-31 Neutral citation 2006 FC 938 File numbers T-364-04 Decision Content Date: 20060731 Docket: T-364-04 Citation: 2006 FC 938 Between: DR. SAMIR ELOMARI Applicant and PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] In an order dated March 27, 2006, the Court dismissed the present application for judicial review and stated the following: [translation] The applicant may, within 14 days of the date of this order, serve and file a motion seeking an award, determination or directions with regard to the assessment of costs for the application for judicial review. [2] On April 7, 2006, the applicant advised the Court that he did not intend to file such a motion. On the same day, in answer to this letter, the respondent wrote that [translation] “we do not intend at this stage of the proceedings to claim costs on the merits in spite of the dismissal of the application. However, we believe it is appropriate to claim costs on the motion for the extension of time”. [3] Further to this request, on April 20, 2006, we issued a timetable directing the parties to make their written submissions concerning the assessment of costs in connection with the interlocutory motion that was allowed by the Court on July 8, 2004. [4] I wish to point out that, as a general rule, the assessment of costs when the final judgmen…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Elomari v. Canada (National Research Council) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-07-31 Neutral citation 2006 FC 938 File numbers T-364-04 Decision Content Date: 20060731 Docket: T-364-04 Citation: 2006 FC 938 Between: DR. SAMIR ELOMARI Applicant and PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] In an order dated March 27, 2006, the Court dismissed the present application for judicial review and stated the following: [translation] The applicant may, within 14 days of the date of this order, serve and file a motion seeking an award, determination or directions with regard to the assessment of costs for the application for judicial review. [2] On April 7, 2006, the applicant advised the Court that he did not intend to file such a motion. On the same day, in answer to this letter, the respondent wrote that [translation] “we do not intend at this stage of the proceedings to claim costs on the merits in spite of the dismissal of the application. However, we believe it is appropriate to claim costs on the motion for the extension of time”. [3] Further to this request, on April 20, 2006, we issued a timetable directing the parties to make their written submissions concerning the assessment of costs in connection with the interlocutory motion that was allowed by the Court on July 8, 2004. [4] I wish to point out that, as a general rule, the assessment of costs when the final judgment has been rendered and the Court has ruled, at the same time, on the matter of costs. The party entitled to the costs may then submit its set of costs for assessment. The set of costs will include the expenses related to the interlocutory motions. [5] Whereas the order dated March 27, 2006, does not mention anything about costs on the merits, and taking into account the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that I do not have the authority to assess costs at this stage of the proceedings. DATED AT MONTREAL, THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY 2006. Signed “Michelle Lamy” Michelle Lamy ASSESSMENT OFFICER Certified true translation Michael Palles FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-364-04 BETWEEN: DR. SAMIR ELOMARI Applicant and PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec REASONS OF MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER DATED: JULY 31, 2006 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Trudel & Johnston Montréal, Quebec for the applicant John H. Sims, QC Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario for the respondent
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80