Canada v. 713460 Ontario Ltd. (Heirloom Clock Company)
Source text
Canada v. 713460 Ontario Ltd. (Heirloom Clock Company) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-10-02 Neutral citation 2007 FC 1005 File numbers T-2203-04 Decision Content Date: 20071002 Docket: T-2203-04 Citation: 2007 FC 1005 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Plaintiff and 713460 ONTARIO LTD. o/a HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY Defendant ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court allowed this action with costs concerning excise tax in respect of grandfather clocks. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Plaintiff's bill of costs. [2] The Defendant did not file any materials in response to the Plaintiff'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 amended 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 amended bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Plaintiff's amended bill of costs is allowed as presented at $5,879.30. "Charles E. Stinson" …
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Canada v. 713460 Ontario Ltd. (Heirloom Clock Company) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-10-02 Neutral citation 2007 FC 1005 File numbers T-2203-04 Decision Content Date: 20071002 Docket: T-2203-04 Citation: 2007 FC 1005 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Plaintiff and 713460 ONTARIO LTD. o/a HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY Defendant ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court allowed this action with costs concerning excise tax in respect of grandfather clocks. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Plaintiff's bill of costs. [2] The Defendant did not file any materials in response to the Plaintiff'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 amended 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 amended bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Plaintiff's amended bill of costs is allowed as presented at $5,879.30. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2203-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: HMQ v. 713460 ONTARIO LTD. o/a HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: October 2, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: Ms. Marie Crowley FOR THE PLAINTIFF n/a FOR THE DEFENDANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE PLAINTIFF n/a FOR THE DEFENDANT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Administration des aéroports régionaux d’Edmonton c. Thibodeau
2024 CAF 196