713460 Ontario Ltd. (Heirloom Clock Company) v. Canada
Source text
713460 Ontario Ltd. (Heirloom Clock Company) v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-10-02 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 313 File numbers A-121-06 Decision Content Date: 20071002 Docket: A-121-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 313 BETWEEN: 713460 ONTARIO LTD. o/a HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal of a decision of the Federal Court concerning excise tax in respect of grandfather clocks 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 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 amended bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed in the amended bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Respondent's amended bill of costs is allowed as pr…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
713460 Ontario Ltd. (Heirloom Clock Company) v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-10-02 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 313 File numbers A-121-06 Decision Content Date: 20071002 Docket: A-121-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 313 BETWEEN: 713460 ONTARIO LTD. o/a HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal of a decision of the Federal Court concerning excise tax in respect of grandfather clocks 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 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 amended bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed in the amended bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Respondent's amended bill of costs is allowed as presented at $2,777.89 "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-121-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: 713460 ONTARIO LTD.o/a HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY v HMQ ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: October 2, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT Ms. Marie Crowley FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca