BETWEEN:
and
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE and
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Assessment Officer
[1] The Court allowed the Defendants' motion for summary judgment meaning that this action for the return of monies seized by customs officials was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Defendants' bill of costs.
[2] The Plaintiff did not file any materials in response to the Defendants' 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 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 Defendants' bill of costs, presented at $3,653.09, is assessed and allowed at $4,143.09 (mid-range costs of $480.00 under item 26 for the assessment of costs having been included at the Defendants' request).
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-3-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: VAN PHAT HOANG v. MNR et al.
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
n/a
|
|
|
Elizabeth Kikuchi
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Harold A. Mattson Kitchener, ON
|
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|