Sandiford v. Canada

Sandiford v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2007-10-22
Neutral citation
2007 FC 1093
File numbers
T-1685-05
Decision Content
Date: 20071022
Docket: T-1685-05
Citation: 2007 FC 1093
BETWEEN:
CALVIN SANDIFORD
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] The Plaintiff brought this action for relief concerning career progression and regulation of his military life as an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces. Further to the Defendant's motion, a Prothonotary struck out his action and fixed costs of the motion at $750.00. The Plaintiff's appeal by way of notice of motion was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Defendant's bill of costs for the appeal proceeding.
[2] The Plaintiff did not file any materials in response to the Defendant'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. I examined each item claimed in the bill of costs and supporting materials within those parameters.
[3] Certain items warrant my intervention in view of my expressed parameters above as I feel that the Defendant cannot establish entitlement thereto notwithstanding the absence of objections from the Plaintiff. Items 5 and 6 under the subheading "Motions" in Tariff B address respectively preparation for and attendance on a motion. Items 13(a) under the subheading "Pre-Trial and Pre-Hearing Procedures" and 14(a) under the subheading "Trial or Hearing" address respectively preparation for and attendance on a hearing. The Defendant claims all four items for the same hearing, i.e. the appeal of the Prothonotary's decision. This is not a situation in which costs for a motion brought within the hearing of the trial of an action can be claimed under items 5 and 6 separate from the costs of the trial. Items 13(a) and 14(a) would apply to the latter costs. As the practice has been to use items 5 and 6 for a notice of motion appealing a decision of a Prothonotary, I allow them as presented, but disallow items 13(a) and 14(a).
[4] The Defendant has claimed the maximum amount for item 15 (written argument) also under the subheading "Trial or Hearing". I am not convinced that this is appropriate, but as I think that the Defendant might have been able to argue for additional amounts elsewhere in the Tariff, I allow it at
the minimum value in its range. The other items of costs are generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Defendant's bill of costs, presented at $6,251.80, is assessed and allowed at $4,451.80.
"Charles E. Stinson"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1685-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: CALVIN SANDIFORD v. HMQ
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: October 22, 2007
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:
n/a
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Ms. Valerie J. Anderson
FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
n/a
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE DEFENDANT