Hill v. Canada
Source text
Hill v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2008-01-29 Neutral citation 2008 FC 107 File numbers T-1167-06 Decision Content Date: 20080128 Docket: T-1167-06 Citation: 2008 FC 107 Between: PETER GARTH HILL Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS JUDITH CHARLES, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This is an assessment of the Defendant’s Bill of Costs following the Court’s granting of the Defendant’s notice of motion for an Order pursuant to Rule 216 of the Federal Courts Rules. Costs were awarded to the Defendant. [2] The Defendant filed the Bill of Costs and an affidavit of disbursements on April 17, 2007. Upon review, it was determined that the assessment would be done in writing and so a timetable for the filing of materials was issued. [3] The Defendant did not file further documents. By way of letter dated November 29, 2007, the Plaintiff’s counsel advised that he does not have instructions from the Plaintiff but under the circumstances, he did not anticipate the Plaintiff contesting the Defendant’s Bill of Costs. [4] The Defendant’s fees are allowed at $1504.80 for the following items per Tariff B: Item 2 (Preparation and filing of defence) 4 units; Item 5 (Preparation and filing of a contested motion) 5 units; Item 26 (Assessment of Costs) 2 units. [5] The Defendant submitted $533.58 in disbursements all of which are substantiated by the affidavit filed in support of the Bill of Costs and is therefore allowed. [6] The Bill of Co…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Hill v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2008-01-29 Neutral citation 2008 FC 107 File numbers T-1167-06 Decision Content Date: 20080128 Docket: T-1167-06 Citation: 2008 FC 107 Between: PETER GARTH HILL Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS JUDITH CHARLES, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This is an assessment of the Defendant’s Bill of Costs following the Court’s granting of the Defendant’s notice of motion for an Order pursuant to Rule 216 of the Federal Courts Rules. Costs were awarded to the Defendant. [2] The Defendant filed the Bill of Costs and an affidavit of disbursements on April 17, 2007. Upon review, it was determined that the assessment would be done in writing and so a timetable for the filing of materials was issued. [3] The Defendant did not file further documents. By way of letter dated November 29, 2007, the Plaintiff’s counsel advised that he does not have instructions from the Plaintiff but under the circumstances, he did not anticipate the Plaintiff contesting the Defendant’s Bill of Costs. [4] The Defendant’s fees are allowed at $1504.80 for the following items per Tariff B: Item 2 (Preparation and filing of defence) 4 units; Item 5 (Preparation and filing of a contested motion) 5 units; Item 26 (Assessment of Costs) 2 units. [5] The Defendant submitted $533.58 in disbursements all of which are substantiated by the affidavit filed in support of the Bill of Costs and is therefore allowed. [6] The Bill of Costs totalling $2038.38 is allowed. A certificate of assessment in this amount will be issued. “Judith Charles” JUDITH CHARLES ASSESSMENT OFFICER HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA January 28, 2008 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1167-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: PETER GARTH HILL v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES PLACE OF TAXATION: Halifax, Nova Scotia ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS BY: JUDITH CHARLES, ASSESSMENT OFFICER DATE OF REASONS: January 28, 2008 SOLICITOR OF RECORD: IOSIPESCU, WHITEHEAD & METLEGE Halifax, NS John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Halifax, NS FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Administration des aéroports régionaux d’Edmonton c. Thibodeau
2024 CAF 196