Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

 

Date: 20080208

Docket: A-527-98

Citation: 2008 FCA 51

BETWEEN:

HARRY BELL

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-528-98

ROBERT WALKUS SENIOR

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-529-98

PATRICK CHARLIE

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-551-98

CORRINE WALKUS

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-552-98

BRIAN WALKUS

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

Docket: A-553-98

DOREEN WALKUS

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-554-98

ROBERT CHARLIE

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-555-98

JOHNSON BELL

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-556-98

ALVIN WALKUS

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-557-98

RAYMOND E. CLAIR

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-558-98

JOYE WALKUS

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

Docket: A-559-98

HENRY WALKUS

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-560-98

LLOYD WALKUS

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-561-98

JAMES WALKUS

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

Docket: A-562-98

CHANTAL CHARLIE

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]               This appeal and several others, listed in the style of cause above, were consolidated and heard together. They addressed decisions of the Tax Court of Canada concerning income tax exemptions relative to status Indians and fishing activities and were dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's bill of costs, prepared for recovery from the Appellants, Alvin Walkus, Henry Walkus, Lloyd Walkus and Patrick Charlie (the Appellants). The appellants other than the Appellants have either settled costs, are deceased or are in bankruptcy. The Respondent's materials indicate that one-fifteenth (1/15), i.e. $384.31, of the amount of the bill of costs is payable by each of the Appellants.

 

[2]               The Appellants 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 $5,764.67.

 

 

"Charles E. Stinson"

 

 

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

DOCKET:                                          A-527-98

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          HARRY BELL v. HMQ

 

 

 

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

 

 

 

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    CHARLES E. STINSON

 

DATED:                                                                                 February 8, 2008

 

 

 

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:

 

n/a	FOR THE APPELLANTS (self-represented)
Ms. Wendy Yoshida	FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

n/a	FOR THE APPELLANTS
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada	FOR THE RESPONDENT