Brown v. Canada (Canada Revenue Agency)
Source text
Brown v. Canada (Canada Revenue Agency) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2008-04-10 Neutral citation 2008 FC 465 File numbers T-151-05 Decision Content Date: 20080410 Docket: T-151-05 Citation: 2008 FC 465 BETWEEN: RODERICK EVAN BROWN Appellant and CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this application for judicial review to set aside a determination that the Applicant had not made a voluntary disclosure of his failure to remit GST. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent’s bill of costs. [2] The Applicant 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 within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $2,688.75. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-151-05 STYLE OF C…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Brown v. Canada (Canada Revenue Agency) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2008-04-10 Neutral citation 2008 FC 465 File numbers T-151-05 Decision Content Date: 20080410 Docket: T-151-05 Citation: 2008 FC 465 BETWEEN: RODERICK EVAN BROWN Appellant and CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this application for judicial review to set aside a determination that the Applicant had not made a voluntary disclosure of his failure to remit GST. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent’s bill of costs. [2] The Applicant 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 within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $2,688.75. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-151-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: RODERICK EVAN BROWN v. CCRA ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: April 10, 2008 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPLICANT Ms. Jade Boucher FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: n/a FOR THE APPLICANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80