Grundy v. Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency)
Source text
Grundy v. Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-10-03 Neutral citation 2006 FC 1176 File numbers T-98-05 Decision Content Date: 20061003 Docket: T-98-05 Citation: 2006 FC 1176 BETWEEN: ROBERT GRUNDY Applicant and CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This application for judicial review, seeking relief from penalties and interest relative to the failure to report income, was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent’s revised 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 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 revised 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 revised bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Respondent’s…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Grundy v. Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-10-03 Neutral citation 2006 FC 1176 File numbers T-98-05 Decision Content Date: 20061003 Docket: T-98-05 Citation: 2006 FC 1176 BETWEEN: ROBERT GRUNDY Applicant and CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This application for judicial review, seeking relief from penalties and interest relative to the failure to report income, was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent’s revised 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 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 revised 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 revised bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Respondent’s revised bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $2,708.15. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-98-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: ROBERT GRUNDY v. CCRA ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: October 3, 2006 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: n/a FOR THE APPLICANT Marla Teeling FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: n/a FOR THE APPLICANT Mr. 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