Federal Court Decisions

 

 

 

Date: 20110608

Docket: ITA-5256-09

Citation: 2011 FC 651

BETWEEN:

	In the matter of the Income Tax Act, and In the matter of assessments by the Minister of National Revenue under the Income Tax Act	Applicant
	Against
	9088-2028 QUÉBEC INC.   AND   87220 CANADA LTÉE	Judgment debtor     Default garnishee

 

[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

  ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS

 

ASSESSMENT OFFICER JOHANNE PARENT

 

• [1] On November 19, 2009, the Court issued a final garnishment order, with costs.On February 28, 2011, counsel for the Crown submitted its bill of costs to the Court. Directions were given on March 3 and 14, 2011, informing the parties that the assessment of costs would proceed in writing and of the time limit for filing submissions.

 

• [2] To support the bill of costs, written submissions and the affidavit of Julie S. Aubry justifying the disbursements were filed in the Court record. The judgment debtor and default garnishee did not file any submissions or requests to extend the time with the Court Registry.

 

• [3] Consequently, I will assess the bill of costs pursuant to the Federal Courts Rules, Tariff B and the observations of my colleague in Dahl v. Canada, 2007 FC 192 (AO) at paragraph 2:

Effectively, the absence of any relevant representations by the Plaintiff, which could assist me in identifying issues and making a decision, leaves the bill of costs unopposed. 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.

 

 

• [4] The units claimed for preparation and filing of the originating document (item 1); preparation and filing of a contested motion for a final garnishment order (item 5); the appearance of counsel on the motion (item 6); services after judgment (item 25); and assessment of costs (item 26) are allowed as claimed.

 

• [5] About the claim for preparation and filing of a motion to obtain an interim garnishment order, the Court, in its October 14, 2009, decision, ordered the garnishee to pay costs upon failure to produce an affidavit. Upon reading the file, I note that the garnishee produced no affidavit. Since the claim concerns a non-originating motion, the units claimed for item 1 for preparing and filing a motion to obtain an interim garnishment order are allowed, but at the maximum provided by Tariff B under item 4 (preparation and filing of an uncontested motion).

 

• [6] The justification of the disbursements claimed in the bill of costs can be found in Julie S. Aubry’s affidavit. The disbursements are undisputed and are considered necessary charges to the conduct of this matter. The amounts are justified and reasonable and will thus be allowed.

 

• [7] The Crown’s bill of costs is allowed in the amount of $2,821.01.

 

  “Johanne Parent”

 

Toronto, Ontario

June 8, 2011

FEDERAL COURT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

DOCKET:  ITA-5256-09 

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:  In the matter of the Income Tax Act,

and in the matter of

assessments by the Minister

of National Revenue under the

Income Tax Act v. 9088-2028

QUÉBEC INC. AND 87220 CANADA LTÉE

 

 

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

 

 

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT BY:  ASSESSMENT OFFICER

  JOHANNE PARENT

 

DATED:  June 8, 2011

 

 

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

 

Luc Vaillancourt	FOR THE APPLICANT
No written submissions   No written submissions	FOR THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR   FOR THE DEFAULT GARNISHEE

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada	FOR THE APPLICANT
N/A   N/A	FOR THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR   FOR THE DEFAULT GARNISHEE