Marathon Electric Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)
Source text
Marathon Electric Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-08-29 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 287 File numbers A-28-04 Decision Content Date: 20060829 Docket: A-28-04 Citation: 2006 FCA 287 BETWEEN: MARATHON ELECTRIC LTD. Appellant/Applicant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal, addressing a decision of the Tax Court of Canada concerning insurability of employment, was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment 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 amended 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 a…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Marathon Electric Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-08-29 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 287 File numbers A-28-04 Decision Content Date: 20060829 Docket: A-28-04 Citation: 2006 FCA 287 BETWEEN: MARATHON ELECTRIC LTD. Appellant/Applicant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal, addressing a decision of the Tax Court of Canada concerning insurability of employment, was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment 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 amended 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 amended bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $3,881.46. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-28-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: MARATHON ELECTRIC LTD. - and – MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: August 29, 2006 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT/APPLICANT Kristy Foreman Gear FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Kahn Zack Ehrlich Lithwick Richmond, BC FOR THE APPELLANT Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca