Richer v. Freeland
Source text
Richer v. Freeland Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2008-04-11 Neutral citation 2008 FC 468 File numbers T-2303-05 Decision Content Date: 20080411 Docket: T-2303-05 Citation: 2008 FC 468 BETWEEN: JEAN RICHER Applicant and MARIA LYNN FREELAND, INDEPENDENT CHAIRPERSON SASKATCHEWAN PENITENTIARY, AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this application to quash a conviction for failure to provide a urine sample. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondents’ bill of costs. [2] The Applicant did not file any materials in response to the Respondents’ 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 parameters. The total amount claimed is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $1,800.00. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2303-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN RICHER v. MARIA L…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Richer v. Freeland Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2008-04-11 Neutral citation 2008 FC 468 File numbers T-2303-05 Decision Content Date: 20080411 Docket: T-2303-05 Citation: 2008 FC 468 BETWEEN: JEAN RICHER Applicant and MARIA LYNN FREELAND, INDEPENDENT CHAIRPERSON SASKATCHEWAN PENITENTIARY, AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this application to quash a conviction for failure to provide a urine sample. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondents’ bill of costs. [2] The Applicant did not file any materials in response to the Respondents’ 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 parameters. The total amount claimed is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $1,800.00. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2303-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN RICHER v. MARIA LYNN FREELAND et al. ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: April 11, 2008 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT (self-represented) Ms. Natasha Crooks FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Administration des aéroports régionaux d’Edmonton c. Thibodeau
2024 CAF 196