Ross v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency)
Source text
Ross v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-08-23 Neutral citation 2007 FC 850 File numbers T-1970-05 Decision Content Date: 20070823 Docket: T-1970-05 Citation: 2007 FC 850 BETWEEN: BRUCE & LINDA ROSS Plaintiffs and THE MINISTER OF CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY, CUSTOMS BORDER SERVICES AGENCY Defendants ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this appeal concerning a levy, paid by the Plaintiff, Bruce Ross, for the return of goods and a conveyance, which was held as forfeit. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Defendants' bill of costs. [2] The Plaintiffs did not file any materials in response to the Defendants' 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 materials. As the bill of costs claims the minimum values respectively for the counsel fee items and does not claim any disbursements, it is allowed as presented at $2,640.00. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FED…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Ross v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-08-23 Neutral citation 2007 FC 850 File numbers T-1970-05 Decision Content Date: 20070823 Docket: T-1970-05 Citation: 2007 FC 850 BETWEEN: BRUCE & LINDA ROSS Plaintiffs and THE MINISTER OF CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY, CUSTOMS BORDER SERVICES AGENCY Defendants ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this appeal concerning a levy, paid by the Plaintiff, Bruce Ross, for the return of goods and a conveyance, which was held as forfeit. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Defendants' bill of costs. [2] The Plaintiffs did not file any materials in response to the Defendants' 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 materials. As the bill of costs claims the minimum values respectively for the counsel fee items and does not claim any disbursements, it is allowed as presented at $2,640.00. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1970-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: BRUCE & LINDA ROSS v. THE MINISTER OF CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE et al. ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPERANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: August 23, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE PLAINTIFFS Mr. Don Klaasen FOR THE DEFENDANTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: n/a FOR THE PLAINTIFFS John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE DEFENDANTS
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Administration des aéroports régionaux d’Edmonton c. Thibodeau
2024 CAF 196