Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20070220

Docket: T-1225-05

Citation: 2007 FC 192

BETWEEN:

REGINALD R. DAHL

Plaintiff

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Defendant

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]               This action, asserting misconduct by the Defendant associated with challenges to certain income tax assessments, was struck out with costs for disclosing no cause of action. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Defendant's bill of costs. The Plaintiff's materials took the form of a complaint against the Court, alleging malicious prosecution, for submission to Parliament. They included a statement of opposition to the bill of costs.

[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. I examined each item claimed in the bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. Certain items 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]               Further to Balisky v. Canada (Minister of National Resources), [2004] F.C.J. No. 536 (A.O.) at para. [6] and Aird v. Country Park Village Properties (Mainland) Ltd., [2005] F.C.J. No. 1426 (A.O.) at para. [10], I have no authority to assess costs in the face of an order silent on costs. A judgment for costs of the action cannot carry an interlocutory disposition of costs. Accordingly, I disallow the items 5 and 6 claims (preparation and appearance respectively) relating to the motion for further and better particulars. It follows that the associated disbursement of $114.49 for service and filing of the motion materials is disallowed. The item 5 and 6 claims for the motion to strike are allowed as claimed at the maximum amounts plus the associated disbursement of $89.88 for service. An item 21 claim is made for the preparation of each motion. Both are disallowed because item 21 applies only to interlocutory matters during an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. Item 26 (assessment of costs) is allowed as presented at the maximum value. The Defendant's bill of costs, presented at $6,086.77, is assessed and allowed at $2,689.08.

"Charles E. Stinson"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          T-1225-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          REGINALD R. DAHL v. HMQ

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED:                                                                                 February 20, 2007

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: