Houweling v. Canada
Source text
Houweling v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-10-11 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 321 File numbers A-493-05 Decision Content Date: 20071011 Docket: A-493-05 Citation: 2007 FCA 321 BETWEEN: PAUL HOUWELING Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this appeal of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada concerning capital gains. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's amended bill of costs. The Appellant's reply consisted of two bundles of materials which appear to assert fraud on the part of the Respondent. [2] Effectively, these circumstances are as if the Appellant had advanced no materials given the absence of any relevant representations which could have assisted me in identifying issues and making a decision. 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 awar…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Houweling v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-10-11 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 321 File numbers A-493-05 Decision Content Date: 20071011 Docket: A-493-05 Citation: 2007 FCA 321 BETWEEN: PAUL HOUWELING Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this appeal of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada concerning capital gains. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's amended bill of costs. The Appellant's reply consisted of two bundles of materials which appear to assert fraud on the part of the Respondent. [2] Effectively, these circumstances are as if the Appellant had advanced no materials given the absence of any relevant representations which could have assisted me in identifying issues and making a decision. 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 $3,198.65. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-493-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: PAUL HOUWELING v. HMQ ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: October 11, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: Mr. Paul Houweling FOR THE APPELLANT (self-represented) Mr. Ron D.F. Wilhelm 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.fca-caf.gc.ca
Administration des aéroports régionaux d’Edmonton c. Thibodeau
2024 CAF 196