Odenkirchen v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court headnote
Odenkirchen v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2005-12-19 Neutral citation 2005 FC 1717 File numbers T-1337-03 Decision Content Date: 20051219 Docket: T-1337-03 Citation: 2005 FC 1717 BETWEEN: JOHN ODENKIRCHEN Applicant - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision to revoke his indeterminate appointment to the federal public service. The Court dismissed this proceeding for delay. The Applicant then sought reconsideration and certain other relief. The Court dismissed the motion with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondent's bill of costs. [2] The Applicant did not file any materials in response to the Respondent's materials. 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items for services of counsel which might have attracted disagreement, but the amount claimed in total in the bill of costs is generally arguable w…
Read full judgment
Odenkirchen v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2005-12-19 Neutral citation 2005 FC 1717 File numbers T-1337-03 Decision Content Date: 20051219 Docket: T-1337-03 Citation: 2005 FC 1717 BETWEEN: JOHN ODENKIRCHEN Applicant - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision to revoke his indeterminate appointment to the federal public service. The Court dismissed this proceeding for delay. The Applicant then sought reconsideration and certain other relief. The Court dismissed the motion with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondent's bill of costs. [2] The Applicant did not file any materials in response to the Respondent's materials. 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items for services of counsel which might have attracted disagreement, but the amount claimed in total in the bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Respondent's bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $1,614.80. (Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above document is a true copy of the original filed of record in the Registry of the Federal Court of Appeal on the _______ day of ___________ A.D. 20 ____ Dated this _______ day of ____________ 20 ____ M. Louise Marcotte, Senior Registry Officer FEDERAL COURT NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1337-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: JOHN ODENKIRCHEN - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: December 19, 2005 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca