Superior Filter Recycling Inc. v. Canada
Source text
Superior Filter Recycling Inc. v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-08-22 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 270 File numbers A-459-05 Decision Content Date: 20070822 Docket: A-459-05 Citation: 2007 FCA 270 BETWEEN: SUPERIOR FILTER RECYCLING INC. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this appeal of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada to refuse an adjournment sought by the Appellant. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment 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 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. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed in the bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the awards of costs. The Respondent's bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $3,625.75. "Charles E. …
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Superior Filter Recycling Inc. v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-08-22 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 270 File numbers A-459-05 Decision Content Date: 20070822 Docket: A-459-05 Citation: 2007 FCA 270 BETWEEN: SUPERIOR FILTER RECYCLING INC. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this appeal of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada to refuse an adjournment sought by the Appellant. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment 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 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. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed in the bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the awards of costs. The Respondent's bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $3,625.75. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-459-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: SUPERIOR FILTER RECYCLING INC. v. HMQ ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPERANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: August 22, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT Ms. Johanna Russell 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