Dutchak v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, United Transportation Union
Source text
Dutchak v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, United Transportation Union Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-08-15 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 277 File numbers A-403-05 Decision Content Date: 20060815 Docket: A-403-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 277 BETWEEN: DALE DUTCHAK Applicant and TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE, UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION and CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. He also sought, within this proceeding, a stay of proceedings in Federal Court of Appeal file A-505-03, and consolidation of both proceedings. The Court’s order dated February 22, 2006 provided that the “applicant’s letter dated February 3, 2006 is to be considered, at his own request, as a notice of discontinuance under Rule 166, with costs of the application for judicial review against the applicant.” I issued a timetable for written disposition of the bill of costs of the Respondent, Canadian Pacific Railway Company. [2] The respective submissions from the parties were similar to those led for the assessments of costs in court file A-505-03, reported at Dutchak v. United Transportation Union, [2006] F.C.J. No. 973 (A.O.). I have considered the bill of costs here of Canadian Pacific Railway Company consistent with my approach in said decision. I find said bill of costs reasonable in the circumstances and …
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Dutchak v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, United Transportation Union Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-08-15 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 277 File numbers A-403-05 Decision Content Date: 20060815 Docket: A-403-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 277 BETWEEN: DALE DUTCHAK Applicant and TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE, UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION and CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. He also sought, within this proceeding, a stay of proceedings in Federal Court of Appeal file A-505-03, and consolidation of both proceedings. The Court’s order dated February 22, 2006 provided that the “applicant’s letter dated February 3, 2006 is to be considered, at his own request, as a notice of discontinuance under Rule 166, with costs of the application for judicial review against the applicant.” I issued a timetable for written disposition of the bill of costs of the Respondent, Canadian Pacific Railway Company. [2] The respective submissions from the parties were similar to those led for the assessments of costs in court file A-505-03, reported at Dutchak v. United Transportation Union, [2006] F.C.J. No. 973 (A.O.). I have considered the bill of costs here of Canadian Pacific Railway Company consistent with my approach in said decision. I find said bill of costs reasonable in the circumstances and allow it as presented at $1,096.46. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-403-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: DALE DUTCHAK Applicant and TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE et al. Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: August 15, 2006 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Dale Dutchak ON HIS OWN BEHALF Karen L.Fleming FOR THE RESPONDENT Canadian Pacific Railway Company SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Caley Wray Toronto, ON FOR THE RESPONDENT United Transportation Union Canadian Pacific Railway Company Legal Services Department Calgary, AB FOR THE RESPONDENT Canadian Pacific Railway Company
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca