Shilling v. Canada
Source text
Shilling v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-07-07 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 254 File numbers A-583-03 Decision Content Date: 20060707 Docket: A-583-03 Citation: 2006 FCA 254 BETWEEN: RACHEL SHILLING Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal, from a decision of the Federal Court granting the Crown's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the underlying action for determination of whether the Appellant's 1995 and 1996 employment income was exempt from income tax pursuant to the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, s. 87, was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition 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 an assessment officer stepping away from a position of neutrality 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 amount claimed in total in the bill of costs is generally arguable within the …
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Shilling v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-07-07 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 254 File numbers A-583-03 Decision Content Date: 20060707 Docket: A-583-03 Citation: 2006 FCA 254 BETWEEN: RACHEL SHILLING Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal, from a decision of the Federal Court granting the Crown's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the underlying action for determination of whether the Appellant's 1995 and 1996 employment income was exempt from income tax pursuant to the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, s. 87, was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition 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 an assessment officer stepping away from a position of neutrality 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 amount claimed in total in the bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Respondent's bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $1,782.90. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-583-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: RACHEL SHILLING - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: July 7, 2006 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Mr. John Shipley FOR RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Reynolds, Dolgin Ottawa, ON FOR APPELLANT Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca