Bauer v. Seaspan International Ltd.
Source text
Bauer v. Seaspan International Ltd. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-08-23 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 285 File numbers A-610-04 Decision Content Date: 20060823 Docket: A-610-04 Citation: 2006 FCA 285 BETWEEN: JOHN BAUER Appellant and SEASPAN INTERNATIONAL LTD. Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal, from a decision of the Federal Court dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of an Adjudicator under s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code concerning unjust dismissal and associated damages, was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of costs of the Respondent’s bill of costs. [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 an assessment officer stepping away from 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the amount claimed in total in the bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as r…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Bauer v. Seaspan International Ltd. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-08-23 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 285 File numbers A-610-04 Decision Content Date: 20060823 Docket: A-610-04 Citation: 2006 FCA 285 BETWEEN: JOHN BAUER Appellant and SEASPAN INTERNATIONAL LTD. Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal, from a decision of the Federal Court dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of an Adjudicator under s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code concerning unjust dismissal and associated damages, was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of costs of the Respondent’s bill of costs. [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 an assessment officer stepping away from 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the amount claimed in total in the bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of his litigation. The Respondent’s bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $3,726.93. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-610-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: JOHN BAUER - and – SEASPAN INTERNATIONAL LTD. ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: August 23, 2006 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT Michael W. Hunter, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT Fasken Martineau Vancouver, BC FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80