Date: 20051219
Docket: A-285-03
Citation: 2005 FCA 437
BETWEEN:
BRUCE MORRIS
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada upholding assessments with respect to his earnings as a fishing guide. The Court dismissed his application for judicial review with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondent's bill of costs. The submissions advanced by the Applicant essentially reargued the case and sought various heads of relief, including the overturn of judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court of Canada, termination of public jobs, convening of a public inquiry, tax refunds, damages of $1,500,000.00 and reversal of various costs awards, all beyond my jurisdiction.
[2] Effectively, the absence of any relevant representations by the unsuccessful party which could assist me in identifying issues and making a decision leaves the bill of the successful party 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. I examined each item claimed in the bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. In the circumstances of this litigation, the claims in the bill of costs are generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs. However, certain things warrant my intervention as a function of my expressed parameters above and given what I perceive as general opposition to the bill of costs.
[3] Specifically, the bill of costs claims for preparation of materials in response to the Applicant's motion to extend time to file an affidavit. The resultant order was silent as to costs leaving me without jurisdiction to assess costs here in favour of the Respondent: see Balisky v. Canada (Minister of Natural Resources), [2004] F.C.J. No. 536 (A.O.) at para. [6]. Therefore, I remove the 5 units claimed for item 5 plus my estimate of $65.00 for associated disbursements. In all other respects, the bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Respondent's bill of costs, presented at $4,647.22, is assessed and allowed at $4,032.22.
(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"
Assessment Officer
| I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above document |
| is a true copy of the original filed of record in the Registry of the Federal Court of Appeal on the _______ day of ___________ A.D. 20 ____
Dated this _______ day of ____________ 20 ____
M. Louise Marcotte, Senior Registry Officer |
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-285-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: BRUCE MORRIS
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: December 19, 2005
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR RESPONDENT |