Dumont v. Canada
Court headnote
Dumont v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-05-14 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 159 File numbers A-48-06 Decision Content Date: 20090514 Docket: A-48-06 Citation: 2009 FCA 159 BETWEEN: VAN DUMONT Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this appeal of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada related to liability by an Indian for taxes of income derived from fishing in coastal waters. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondents’ bill of costs. [2] The Appellant 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. [3] The bill of costs included a claim under counsel fee item 13(a) for preparation for hearing. As my findings in paragraph 10 of Gardner v. Canada (A.G.), [2008] F.C.J. No. 284 (A.O.) indicate that said fee item cannot be claimed for an appeal, but that something could be claimed under fee item 27, I will allow the claimed amount. There were other items which m…
Read full judgment
Dumont v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-05-14 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 159 File numbers A-48-06 Decision Content Date: 20090514 Docket: A-48-06 Citation: 2009 FCA 159 BETWEEN: VAN DUMONT Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this appeal of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada related to liability by an Indian for taxes of income derived from fishing in coastal waters. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondents’ bill of costs. [2] The Appellant 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. [3] The bill of costs included a claim under counsel fee item 13(a) for preparation for hearing. As my findings in paragraph 10 of Gardner v. Canada (A.G.), [2008] F.C.J. No. 284 (A.O.) indicate that said fee item cannot be claimed for an appeal, but that something could be claimed under fee item 27, I will allow the claimed amount. There were other items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed in the Respondents’ bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $4,232.97. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-48-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: VAN DUMONT v. HMQ ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: May 14, 2009 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT (self-represented) Ms. Nadine Taylor Pickering FOR THE RESPONDENTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT (self-represented) John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, BC FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca