Canada v. Tigney Technology Inc.
Court headnote
Canada v. Tigney Technology Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-04-29 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 161 File numbers A-70-97 Decision Content Date: 20020429 Docket: A-70-97, A-303-97 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 161 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant - and - TIGNEY TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] These appeals were consolidated for hearing at the same sitting. The Appellant was successful, was awarded costs and presents a bill of costs for assessment. Subsequent to judgment, the Respondent's solicitor of record was removed by Order of the Court. The Respondent did not respond to notice of the timetable issued for written disposition of the Appellant's bill of costs. There is no indication of the Respondent having communicated with the Appellant to resolve issues of costs nor to put into place legal representation consistent with Rule 120. [2] The Federal Court Rules, 1998, do not contemplate a litigant, having proper notice of an assessment of costs and choosing not to participate, as was the case here, benefiting by an assessment officer abdicating 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 Appellant's bill of costs and the supporting materials wi…
Read full judgment
Canada v. Tigney Technology Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-04-29 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 161 File numbers A-70-97 Decision Content Date: 20020429 Docket: A-70-97, A-303-97 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 161 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant - and - TIGNEY TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] These appeals were consolidated for hearing at the same sitting. The Appellant was successful, was awarded costs and presents a bill of costs for assessment. Subsequent to judgment, the Respondent's solicitor of record was removed by Order of the Court. The Respondent did not respond to notice of the timetable issued for written disposition of the Appellant's bill of costs. There is no indication of the Respondent having communicated with the Appellant to resolve issues of costs nor to put into place legal representation consistent with Rule 120. [2] The Federal Court Rules, 1998, do not contemplate a litigant, having proper notice of an assessment of costs and choosing not to participate, as was the case here, benefiting by an assessment officer abdicating 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 Appellant's bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. Although there are difficulties with the choice of certain fee items, the total amount claimed for fees could be arguable within the limit of the tariff. I kept this latter point in mind in considering the Appellant's request to add an appropriate number of units for the assessment of costs. In the circumstances, I concluded that the minimum value in the range was appropriate. [3] The Appellant's bill of costs, presented at $2,972.80, is assessed and allowed at $3,172.80. (Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer Vancouver, B.C. April 29, 2002 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-70-97, A-303-97 STYLE OF CAUSE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and TIGNEY TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS BY: Charles E. Stinson DATED: April 29, 2002 SOLICITORS OF RECORD Morris Rosenberg for Appellant Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca