Richer v. Canada (Correctional Service)
Source text
Richer v. Canada (Correctional Service) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-03-30 Neutral citation 2007 FC 348 File numbers T-1583-05 Decision Content Date: 20070330 Docket: T-1583-05 Citation: 2007 FC 348 BETWEEN: JEAN RICHER Applicant and CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] In the course of this proceeding for judicial review, the Applicant has appealed two different interlocutory decisions of a Prothonotary. Said appeals were dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondents' bill of costs. [2] The Applicant did not file any materials in response to the Respondents' 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. In the circumstances of this litigation, the total amount claimed in the bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the awards of costs. The Respondents' bill of costs is assessed and allowed as pr…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Richer v. Canada (Correctional Service) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-03-30 Neutral citation 2007 FC 348 File numbers T-1583-05 Decision Content Date: 20070330 Docket: T-1583-05 Citation: 2007 FC 348 BETWEEN: JEAN RICHER Applicant and CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] In the course of this proceeding for judicial review, the Applicant has appealed two different interlocutory decisions of a Prothonotary. Said appeals were dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondents' bill of costs. [2] The Applicant did not file any materials in response to the Respondents' 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. In the circumstances of this litigation, the total amount claimed in the bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the awards of costs. The Respondents' bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $960.00. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1583-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN RICHER v. CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA et al. ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: March 30, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: n/a FOR THE APPLICANT Natasha Crooks FOR THE RESPONDENTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: n/a FOR THE APPLICANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Department of Justice FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca