Hamam v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Source text
Hamam v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2008-04-11 Neutral citation 2008 FC 469 File numbers T-656-06 Decision Content Date: 20080411 Docket: T-656-06 Citation: 2008 FC 469 BETWEEN: AHMAD HAMAN Applicant and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS as represented by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this application for judicial review of a decision pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17, confirming the forfeiture of an undeclared amount of about $30,000.00. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment 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 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 amended bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount …
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Hamam v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2008-04-11 Neutral citation 2008 FC 469 File numbers T-656-06 Decision Content Date: 20080411 Docket: T-656-06 Citation: 2008 FC 469 BETWEEN: AHMAD HAMAN Applicant and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS as represented by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this application for judicial review of a decision pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17, confirming the forfeiture of an undeclared amount of about $30,000.00. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment 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 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 amended bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $4,543.64. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-656-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: AHMAD HAMAM v. MPSEP ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: April 11, 2008 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPLICANT Ms. Marie Crowley FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Hohots & Associates Toronto, ON FOR THE APPLICANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80