Ayangma v. Canada (Treasury Board)
Source text
Ayangma v. Canada (Treasury Board) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-11-05 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 357 File numbers A-342-06 Decision Content Date: 20071105 Docket: A-342-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 357 BETWEEN: DR. NOEL AYANGMA Appellant and THE TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA Respondent and PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Appellant formally abandoned this appeal of a decision of the Federal Court requiring security for costs. The Court dismissed with costs the Appellant's motion for a stay of the Federal Court's decision. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the bill of costs of the Respondent, the Treasury Board of Canada (the Respondent), addressing the motion for a stay. [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 the bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The total amount claimed is generally arguable as reasonable in the circumstance…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Ayangma v. Canada (Treasury Board) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-11-05 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 357 File numbers A-342-06 Decision Content Date: 20071105 Docket: A-342-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 357 BETWEEN: DR. NOEL AYANGMA Appellant and THE TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA Respondent and PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Appellant formally abandoned this appeal of a decision of the Federal Court requiring security for costs. The Court dismissed with costs the Appellant's motion for a stay of the Federal Court's decision. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the bill of costs of the Respondent, the Treasury Board of Canada (the Respondent), addressing the motion for a stay. [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 the bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The total amount claimed is generally arguable as reasonable in the circumstances and is allowed as presented at $875.00 plus $240.00 (the minimum counsel fee allowance under item 26 for assessment of costs) for a total of $1,115.00 "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-342-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: DR. NOEL AYANGMA v. THE TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA et al. ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: November 5, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT (self-represented) Mr. Richard E. Fader 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
Administration des aéroports régionaux d’Edmonton c. Thibodeau
2024 CAF 196