Canada v. Livingston
Court headnote
Canada v. Livingston Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-05-14 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 157 File numbers A-213-07 Decision Content Date: 20090514 Docket: A-213-07 Citation: 2009 FCA 157 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and JEAN LIVINGSTON Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court allowed with costs this appeal of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada addressing a scheme to avoid payment of taxes. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Appellant’s bill of costs. [2] The Respondent did not file any materials in response to the Appellant’s 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. The total amount in the Appellant’s bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $5,345.53. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-213-07 STYLE OF CAUSE: HMQ v. JEAN LIVINGSTON ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: M…
Read full judgment
Canada v. Livingston Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-05-14 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 157 File numbers A-213-07 Decision Content Date: 20090514 Docket: A-213-07 Citation: 2009 FCA 157 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and JEAN LIVINGSTON Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court allowed with costs this appeal of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada addressing a scheme to avoid payment of taxes. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Appellant’s bill of costs. [2] The Respondent did not file any materials in response to the Appellant’s 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. The total amount in the Appellant’s bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $5,345.53. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-213-07 STYLE OF CAUSE: HMQ v. JEAN LIVINGSTON ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: May 14, 2009 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: Ms. Selena Sit FOR THE APPELLANT n/a FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, BC FOR THE APPELLANT Dwyer Tax Lawyers Victoria, BC FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca