Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2001

Macdonald v. Ontario

2001 FCA 335
GeneralJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

Macdonald v. Ontario Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-11-06 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 335 File numbers A-455-99 Decision Content Date: 20011106 Docket: A-455-99 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 335 BETWEEN: IAN V. MACDONALD Appellant (Plaintiff) - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO THE HONOURABLE CHARLES HARNICK WILLIAM MALCOLM BISHOP TERRANCE STERLING BISHOP MICHAEL CHINKIWSKY S. BERGAU Respondent (Defendant) ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] A copy of these Reasons is filed today in Court file T-733-99 and applies there accordingly. The action of the Appellant (Plaintiff) was struck with costs in favour of the Defendant Michael Chinkiwsky. The appeal against that decision was dismissed with costs in favour of the Respondent Chinkiwsky . The Respondent Chinkiwsky filed his Bill of Costs combining elements of the Trial Division and Appeal Division litigation. The Appellant (Plaintiff) did not respond to notice of the timetable issued for written disposition of this bill of costs. The Federal Court Rules, 1998 do not contemplate a litigant, having proper notice of an assessment of costs and choosing not to participate, as was the case here, benefiting by an assessment officer abdicating 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 …

Read full judgment
Macdonald v. Ontario
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2001-11-06
Neutral citation
2001 FCA 335
File numbers
A-455-99
Decision Content
Date: 20011106
Docket: A-455-99
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 335
BETWEEN:
IAN V. MACDONALD
Appellant (Plaintiff)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES HARNICK
WILLIAM MALCOLM BISHOP
TERRANCE STERLING BISHOP
MICHAEL CHINKIWSKY
S. BERGAU
Respondent (Defendant)
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] A copy of these Reasons is filed today in Court file T-733-99 and applies there accordingly. The action of the Appellant (Plaintiff) was struck with costs in favour of the Defendant Michael Chinkiwsky. The appeal against that decision was dismissed with costs in favour of the Respondent Chinkiwsky . The Respondent Chinkiwsky filed his Bill of Costs combining elements of the Trial Division and Appeal Division litigation. The Appellant (Plaintiff) did not respond to notice of the timetable issued for written disposition of this bill of costs. The Federal Court Rules, 1998 do not contemplate a litigant, having proper notice of an assessment of costs and choosing not to participate, as was the case here, benefiting by an assessment officer abdicating 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.
[2] The Bill of Costs of the Respondent, Michael Chinkiwsky, presented at $1,819.00, is assessed and allowed at $1,819.00.
(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"
Assessment Officer
Vancouver, B.C.
November 6, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-455-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: Ian V. MacDonald
- and -
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario et al.
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING
WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS BY: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: November 6, 2001
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Crown Law Office - Civil for the Respondents,
Attorney General for Ontario Her Majesty the Queen in Right
Toronto, Ontario of Ontario, the Attorney General for Ontario, The Hon. Charles Harnick and S. Bergau
Cooligan Ryan for the Respondents,
Ottawa, Ontario W.M. Bishop and T.S. Bishop
Nelligan O'Brien Payne for the Respondent,
Ottawa, Ontario M. Chinkiwsky

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases