Pham v. Canada (Attorney General)
Source text
Pham v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2009-06-22 Neutral citation 2009 FC 651 File numbers 07-T-49 Decision Content Date: 20090622 Docket: 07-T-49 Citation: 2009 FC 651 [ENLGISH TRANSLATION] BETWEEN: DUC DUONG PHAM Plaintiff and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Defendant ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] On November 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a discontinuance of his application for an extension of time to file a judicial review; the defendant, under Rule 402 of the Federal Courts Rules, is therefore entitled to those costs. [2] On March 24, 2009, counsel for the defendant filed a bill of costs and asked that it be assessed without appearance of the parties. On April 23, 2009, letters were sent to the parties setting a timeline for filing written submissions. Since I have not received any written submissions to date, I am now ready to assess the costs based on the documentation on record. [3] The plaintiff claims 7 units for item 2 – Statement of claim and counterclaim. It would have been more appropriate to use item 5 instead of item 2, because item 5 is under heading “B. Motions” of Tariff B. However, I cannot allow this item and the disbursements because there is no Court order that rules on this motion and the costs thereof under Rule 400(1) of the Federal Courts Rules. [4] The defendant claims 6 units for assessment (item 26). Since this is neither challenged or complicated, I will allow 2 units. […
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Pham v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2009-06-22 Neutral citation 2009 FC 651 File numbers 07-T-49 Decision Content Date: 20090622 Docket: 07-T-49 Citation: 2009 FC 651 [ENLGISH TRANSLATION] BETWEEN: DUC DUONG PHAM Plaintiff and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Defendant ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] On November 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a discontinuance of his application for an extension of time to file a judicial review; the defendant, under Rule 402 of the Federal Courts Rules, is therefore entitled to those costs. [2] On March 24, 2009, counsel for the defendant filed a bill of costs and asked that it be assessed without appearance of the parties. On April 23, 2009, letters were sent to the parties setting a timeline for filing written submissions. Since I have not received any written submissions to date, I am now ready to assess the costs based on the documentation on record. [3] The plaintiff claims 7 units for item 2 – Statement of claim and counterclaim. It would have been more appropriate to use item 5 instead of item 2, because item 5 is under heading “B. Motions” of Tariff B. However, I cannot allow this item and the disbursements because there is no Court order that rules on this motion and the costs thereof under Rule 400(1) of the Federal Courts Rules. [4] The defendant claims 6 units for assessment (item 26). Since this is neither challenged or complicated, I will allow 2 units. [5] The defendant’s bill of costs is allowed and assessed in the amount of $240. A certificate of assessment will be issued for this amount. MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC June 22, 2009 “Diane Perrier” DIANE PERRIER ASSESSMENT OFFICER FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: 07-T-49 STYLE OF CAUSE: DUC DUONG PHAM v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec REASONS OF: DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER DATED: June 22, 2009 SOLICITORS OF RECORD Gerardo Nicolo Laval, Quebec FOR THE PLAINTIFF John Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE DEFENDANT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80