Elash v. Canada
Source text
Elash v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-10-01 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 310 File numbers A-449-03 Decision Content Date: 20071001 Docket: A-449-03 Citation: 2007 FCA 310 BETWEEN: JOHANNA ELASH Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada concerning attribution rules was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's bill of costs. [2] The Appellant 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed in the bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Respondent's bill of costs, presented at $1,376.62, is assessed and allowed at $1,616.62 (including the minimum item 26 counsel fee for the assessment of cos…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Elash v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-10-01 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 310 File numbers A-449-03 Decision Content Date: 20071001 Docket: A-449-03 Citation: 2007 FCA 310 BETWEEN: JOHANNA ELASH Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada concerning attribution rules was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's bill of costs. [2] The Appellant 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed in the bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Respondent's bill of costs, presented at $1,376.62, is assessed and allowed at $1,616.62 (including the minimum item 26 counsel fee for the assessment of costs). "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-449-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: JOHANNA ELASH v. HMQ ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: October 1, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT Robert Gosman FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: McKercher McKercher & Whitmore LLP Saskatoon, SK FOR THE APPELLANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca
Administration des aéroports régionaux d’Edmonton c. Thibodeau
2024 CAF 196