Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Date: 20020429

Docket: A-70-97, A-303-97

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 161

BETWEEN:

                                                        HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                                       Appellant

                                                                              - and -

                                           TIGNEY TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                               ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]                 These appeals were consolidated for hearing at the same sitting. The Appellant was successful, was awarded costs and presents a bill of costs for assessment. Subsequent to judgment, the Respondent's solicitor of record was removed by Order of the Court. The Respondent did not respond to notice of the timetable issued for written disposition of the Appellant's bill of costs. There is no indication of the Respondent having communicated with the Appellant to resolve issues of costs nor to put into place legal representation consistent with Rule 120.

[2]                 The Federal Court Rules, 1998, do not contemplate a litigant, having proper notice of an assessment of costs and choosing not to participate, as was the case here, benefiting by an assessment officer abdicating 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 Appellant's bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. Although there are difficulties with the choice of certain fee items, the total amount claimed for fees could be arguable within the limit of the tariff. I kept this latter point in mind in considering the Appellant's request to add an appropriate number of units for the assessment of costs. In the circumstances, I concluded that the minimum value in the range was appropriate.

[3]                 The Appellant's bill of costs, presented at $2,972.80, is assessed and allowed at $3,172.80.

(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"

     Assessment Officer

Vancouver, B.C.

April 29, 2002

                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                 APPEAL DIVISION

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                             A-70-97, A-303-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Appellant

                                                                                 and

TIGNEY TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED

Respondent

                                                                                   

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

REASONS BY:                                   Charles E. Stinson

DATED:                                                April 29, 2002

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

Morris Rosenberg                                                                           for Appellant

Deputy Attorney General of Canada