Brown v. Canada (Revenue)
Court headnote
Brown v. Canada (Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2008-04-10 Neutral citation 2008 FCA 135 File numbers A-655-05 Decision Content Date: 20080410 Docket: A-655-05 Citation: 2008 FCA 135 BETWEEN: RODERICK EVAN BROWN Appellant and CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this appeal of a decision of the Federal Court which had dismissed an application for judicial review to set aside a determination that the Appellant had not made a voluntary disclosure of his failure to remit GST. 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The total amount claimed is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $1,600.00. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer…
Read full judgment
Brown v. Canada (Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2008-04-10 Neutral citation 2008 FCA 135 File numbers A-655-05 Decision Content Date: 20080410 Docket: A-655-05 Citation: 2008 FCA 135 BETWEEN: RODERICK EVAN BROWN Appellant and CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this appeal of a decision of the Federal Court which had dismissed an application for judicial review to set aside a determination that the Appellant had not made a voluntary disclosure of his failure to remit GST. 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The total amount claimed is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $1,600.00. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-655-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: RODERICK EVAN BROWN v. CCRA ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: April 10, 2008 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT Ms. Jade Boucher FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Solmon Rothbart Goodman LLP Toronto, ON FOR THE APPELLANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca