Baird v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-08-30 Neutral citation 2006 FC 1045 File numbers T-2151-05 Decision Content Date: 20060830 Docket: T-2151-05 Citation: 2006 FC 1045 BETWEEN: JAMES RUSSELL BAIRD Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought this action for damages exceeding 30 billion dollars relating to his invention addressing problems of spent nuclear fuel and excess nuclear weapons. The Court struck his action without leave to amend and with costs to the Defendant. As well, the Court issued discrete orders dismissing his motions for injunction and preservation of certain patent rights respectively, both with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Defendant’s three bills of costs addressing respectively the three orders. [2] The Plaintiff argued that there is no entitlement to costs because he is in the process of appealing the result in each of the three orders. He argued that the record discloses the Court’s recognition of his impecunious status meaning that he cannot afford to pay any assessed costs. I. Assessment [3] The Court having exercised its discretion under Rule 400 (1) to award costs, I do not think that financial hardship falls within the ambit of “any other matter” in Rule 400(3)(0) as a factor relevant and applicable by an assessment officer, further to Rule 409, t…

Baird v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-08-30
Neutral citation
2006 FC 1045
File numbers
T-2151-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060830
Docket: T-2151-05
Citation: 2006 FC 1045
BETWEEN:
JAMES RUSSELL BAIRD
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] The Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought this action for damages exceeding 30 billion dollars relating to his invention addressing problems of spent nuclear fuel and excess nuclear weapons. The Court struck his action without leave to amend and with costs to the Defendant. As well, the Court issued discrete orders dismissing his motions for injunction and preservation of certain patent rights respectively, both with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Defendant’s three bills of costs addressing respectively the three orders.
[2] The Plaintiff argued that there is no entitlement to costs because he is in the process of appealing the result in each of the three orders. He argued that the record discloses the Court’s recognition of his impecunious status meaning that he cannot afford to pay any assessed costs.
I. Assessment
[3] The Court having exercised its discretion under Rule 400 (1) to award costs, I do not think that financial hardship falls within the ambit of “any other matter” in Rule 400(3)(0) as a factor relevant and applicable by an assessment officer, further to Rule 409, to minimize assessed litigation costs. The existence of outstanding appeals does not prevent the Defendant from proceeding with these assessments of costs: see Culhane v. ATP Aero Training Products Inc., [2004] F.C.J. No. 1810 (A.O.) at para. [6].
[4] Effectively, the absence of any relevant representations by the Plaintiff, which could assist me in identifying issues and making a decision, leaves the bills of costs unopposed. 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 three bills of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The amount claimed in total in each bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Defendant’s three bills of costs are assessed and allowed as presented at $364.80 (preservation of patent rights), $364.80 (injunction) and $1,026.73 (strike action) respectively.
“Charles E. Stinson”
Assessment Officer
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2151-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: JAMES RUSSELL BAIRD
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: August 30, 2006
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
James Russell Baird
ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Vladena Hola
FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
n/a
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C.
Department of Justice
FOR THE DEFENDANT

Court headnote