BETWEEN:
o/a HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] This appeal of a decision of the Federal Court concerning excise tax in respect of grandfather clocks was dismissed with costs. 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 amended bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed in the amended bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Respondent's amended bill of costs is allowed as presented at $2,777.89
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-121-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: 713460 ONTARIO LTD.o/a
HEIRLOOM CLOCK COMPANY v HMQ
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:
n/a |
|
Ms. Marie Crowley |
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
n/a |
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|