Millette v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)
Court headnote
Millette v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-08-29 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 308 File numbers A-593-99 Decision Content Date: 20020829 Docket: A-593-99 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 308 Between: RÉGENT MILLETTE Appellant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS SUZANNE DAVID, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This assessment concerns an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division following an application for judicial review under subsection 224(1) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs on April 2, 2001. [2] On June 17, 2002, the respondent filed his bill of costs and asked that it be assessed without the parties' personal appearance. Given the absence of written representations by the appellant within the period specified by the Registry, we will proceed with the assessment of Her Majesty's bill of costs. [3] With respect to assessable services, the following claims appear reasonable to me and will be allowed: item 19 5 units $550.00 item 22(a) 2 units (x ½ hour) $110.00 item 22(b) 2 units (x ½ hour) $110.00 item 25 1 unit $110.00 item 26 4 units $440.00 The following items are not allowed for the following reasons: item 20 - one unit is claimed for requisition for hearing. The court's record indicates that this procedure was filed by the appellant on March 15, 2001; item 21(a) - two units relating to a motion for extension of time. Given that the court order does not m…
Read full judgment
Millette v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-08-29 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 308 File numbers A-593-99 Decision Content Date: 20020829 Docket: A-593-99 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 308 Between: RÉGENT MILLETTE Appellant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS SUZANNE DAVID, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This assessment concerns an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division following an application for judicial review under subsection 224(1) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs on April 2, 2001. [2] On June 17, 2002, the respondent filed his bill of costs and asked that it be assessed without the parties' personal appearance. Given the absence of written representations by the appellant within the period specified by the Registry, we will proceed with the assessment of Her Majesty's bill of costs. [3] With respect to assessable services, the following claims appear reasonable to me and will be allowed: item 19 5 units $550.00 item 22(a) 2 units (x ½ hour) $110.00 item 22(b) 2 units (x ½ hour) $110.00 item 25 1 unit $110.00 item 26 4 units $440.00 The following items are not allowed for the following reasons: item 20 - one unit is claimed for requisition for hearing. The court's record indicates that this procedure was filed by the appellant on March 15, 2001; item 21(a) - two units relating to a motion for extension of time. Given that the court order does not make any reference with respect to costs, we do not have the authority needed to grant them. [4] Costs amount to $649.85 and are justified by affidavit. Only an amount of $50.18 relating to service of the requisition for hearing is not allowed for the reason specified under item 20 mentioned above. Total costs will therefore be set at $599.67. Page: 3 [5] The respondent's costs are assessed and allowed in the amount of $1,919.67 and a certificate will be issued accordingly. SUZANNE DAVID ASSESSMENT OFFICER MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC August 29, 2002 Certified true translaton Sophie Debbané, LLB FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD COURT FILE NO.: A-593-99 Between: RÉGENT MILLETTE Appellant AND MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec REASONS OF SUZANNE DAVID, ASSESSMENT OFFICER DATE OF REASONS: August 29, 2002 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For the Respondent
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca