Canada v. Shilling
Source text
Canada v. Shilling Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-07-07 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 255 File numbers A-558-99 Decision Content Date: 20060707 Docket: A-558-99 Citation: 2006 FCA 255 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and RACHEL SHILLING Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal, from a decision of the Federal Court holding that the Respondent's 1995 and 1996 employment income was exempt from income tax pursuant to the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, s. 87, was allowed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Appellant's bill of costs. [2] The Respondent did not file any materials in response to the Appellant'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 this litigation. The Appellant's bill…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Canada v. Shilling Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-07-07 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 255 File numbers A-558-99 Decision Content Date: 20060707 Docket: A-558-99 Citation: 2006 FCA 255 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and RACHEL SHILLING Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal, from a decision of the Federal Court holding that the Respondent's 1995 and 1996 employment income was exempt from income tax pursuant to the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, s. 87, was allowed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Appellant's bill of costs. [2] The Respondent did not file any materials in response to the Appellant'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 this litigation. The Appellant's bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $4,571.80. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-558-99 STYLE OF CAUSE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and - RACHEL SHILLING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: July 7, 2006 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Mr. John Shipley FOR APPELLANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR APPELLANT Reynolds, Dolgin Ottawa, ON FOR RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca
Antrobus c. Canada
2024 CAF 143