Euro Line Appliances v. The Queen
Court headnote
Euro Line Appliances v. The Queen Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-07-23 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 242 File numbers A-323-97 Decision Content Date: 20010723 Docket: A-323-97 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 242 BETWEEN: EURO-LINE APPLIANCES Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS R. BEZUHLY ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This is an assessment of the Bills of Costs submitted on behalf of the Respondent Her Majesty the Queen, pursuant to Judgment dated May 17, 2000, dismissing the appeal with costs. [2] On the argument of the appellant's inability to pay the costs, I refer to a decision by Gibson's J. in Nike Canada Ltd. v. Jane Doe, [1999] F.C.J. No. 1018 (QL) (T.D.): "_In an award of costs, neither the ability to pay nor the difficulty of collection should be a deciding factor". [3] On the argument that when this appeal was commenced, the previous version of the Federal Court Rules applied; Rule 1312 which specifically provided that no costs be payable by any party. Assessment officers cannot certify unlawful items i.e. those outside the authority of the judgment and the Tariff. [4] Upon reviewing the Appellant's Bill of Costs, I have reduced Item 19 to 5 units, accepting the remaining items as stated. [5] Accordingly, I allow the Respondent's Bill of Costs, presented at $1,254.79, at $1,054.79. "Rita Bezuhly" R. Bezuhly Assessment Officer Toronto, Ontario July 23, 2001 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF C…
Read full judgment
Euro Line Appliances v. The Queen Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-07-23 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 242 File numbers A-323-97 Decision Content Date: 20010723 Docket: A-323-97 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 242 BETWEEN: EURO-LINE APPLIANCES Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS R. BEZUHLY ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This is an assessment of the Bills of Costs submitted on behalf of the Respondent Her Majesty the Queen, pursuant to Judgment dated May 17, 2000, dismissing the appeal with costs. [2] On the argument of the appellant's inability to pay the costs, I refer to a decision by Gibson's J. in Nike Canada Ltd. v. Jane Doe, [1999] F.C.J. No. 1018 (QL) (T.D.): "_In an award of costs, neither the ability to pay nor the difficulty of collection should be a deciding factor". [3] On the argument that when this appeal was commenced, the previous version of the Federal Court Rules applied; Rule 1312 which specifically provided that no costs be payable by any party. Assessment officers cannot certify unlawful items i.e. those outside the authority of the judgment and the Tariff. [4] Upon reviewing the Appellant's Bill of Costs, I have reduced Item 19 to 5 units, accepting the remaining items as stated. [5] Accordingly, I allow the Respondent's Bill of Costs, presented at $1,254.79, at $1,054.79. "Rita Bezuhly" R. Bezuhly Assessment Officer Toronto, Ontario July 23, 2001 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-323-97 STYLE OF CAUSE: EURO-LINE APPLIANCES Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS BY: RITA BEZUHLY DATED: TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2001 ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES SOLICITORS OF RECORD: ANDRE & MORALES Barristers & Solicitors 45 O'Connor Street Suite 1520 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1A4 For the Appellant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Date: 20010723 Docket: A-323-97 BETWEEN: EURO-LINE APPLIANCES Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca