Stuart v. Canada (Attorney General)
Source text
Stuart v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2010-10-01 Neutral citation 2010 FC 982 File numbers T-1445-09 Decision Content Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20101001 Docket: T-1445-09 Citation: 2010 FC 982 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] BETWEEN: PETER RANDOLPH STUART Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This is the assessment of the respondent’s bill of costs following the judgment on June 29, 2010 by the Federal Court, dismissing the applicant’s application for judicial review with costs. [2] On September 1, 2010, the respondent filed his bill of costs and requested that the assessment be disposed of in writing. On September 2, 2010, an instruction was sent, setting a schedule for the filing of the parties’ written representations. To this day, having received no written representations from the parties, I am now ready to proceed with the assessment of bill of costs according to the documents on record. [3] The respondent claims the following fees: item 2 – respondent’s case preparation (7 units), item 13 a) – preparation for hearing – (5 units), item 14 a) – counsel fee: to first counsel, per hour in Court (3 units x 3.42 hours), and item 26 – assessment of costs (6 units). [4] The respondent claims the maximum units for each fee claimed. I have considered all the facts stated in subsection 400(3) of the Federal Court Rules in order to adjust the counsel fees, …
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Stuart v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2010-10-01 Neutral citation 2010 FC 982 File numbers T-1445-09 Decision Content Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20101001 Docket: T-1445-09 Citation: 2010 FC 982 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] BETWEEN: PETER RANDOLPH STUART Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS DIANE PERRIER, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This is the assessment of the respondent’s bill of costs following the judgment on June 29, 2010 by the Federal Court, dismissing the applicant’s application for judicial review with costs. [2] On September 1, 2010, the respondent filed his bill of costs and requested that the assessment be disposed of in writing. On September 2, 2010, an instruction was sent, setting a schedule for the filing of the parties’ written representations. To this day, having received no written representations from the parties, I am now ready to proceed with the assessment of bill of costs according to the documents on record. [3] The respondent claims the following fees: item 2 – respondent’s case preparation (7 units), item 13 a) – preparation for hearing – (5 units), item 14 a) – counsel fee: to first counsel, per hour in Court (3 units x 3.42 hours), and item 26 – assessment of costs (6 units). [4] The respondent claims the maximum units for each fee claimed. I have considered all the facts stated in subsection 400(3) of the Federal Court Rules in order to adjust the counsel fees, in a reasonable fashion, according to the case type. So, I have modified item 2 – respondent’s case preparation (5 units), item 14 a) – counsel fee to first counsel, per hour in Court (3 units x 3.42 hours x $130 = $1,333.80. As for item 26 – assessment fees, this was allowed for 2 units, since the assessment does not seem complex nor contested. The assessed fees are allowed in the amount of $2,893.80. [5] The disbursements are allowed in the amount of $70.75 for the respondent’s case photocopies and courier charges for the respondent’s case, since these seem reasonable and necessary to me for the conduct of the case. I have not allowed the photocopies for the notice of appearance in the amount of $2.00, since the case is not mentioned under any fees to be assessed in the Tariff B table. [6] The respondent’s bill of costs, presented at $3,745.25, is assessed and allowed in the amount of $2,964.55. An assessment certificate will be issued for this amount. MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC October 1, 2010 “Diane Perrier” DIANE PERRIER ASSESSMENT OFFICER FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1445-09 STYLE OF CAUSE: PETER RANDOLPH STUART v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec ASSESSMENT OF COSTS REASONS: diane perrier Assessment officer DATED: October 1, 2010 APPEARANCES: Michel Aubin Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca