Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20040526

Docket: A-551-01

Citation: 2004 FCA 207

Between:

JAY BASSILA

Applicant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -REASONS

MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]         This is a assessment in writing of the costs payable to the respondent pursuant to the judgment dated June 18, 2003, dismissing the application for judicial review with costs.

[2]         Since the various claims are reasonable and not contested, all of the fees requested under items 2 (5 units), 13 (3 units), 14 (2 units X 3 hours/services of counsel), 25 (1 unit), 26 (4 units) and 27 (2 units) of Tariff B are allowed as claimed in the amount of $2,310.00. The claim made under item 27 involves the preparation of written submissions in response to those of the applicant following the notice of status review dated May 3, 2002.


[3]         The disbursements for the costs of service ($34.24), photocopies ($1,449.62) and transcript of hearing ($705.13) are allowed in the amount of $2,188.99, having been proved by affidavit and justified in this case.

[4]         The respondent's costs are therefore assessed in the amount of $4,498.99. A certificate is issued in this amount.

    Signed: "Michelle Lamy"     

MICHELLE LAMY

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

May 26, 2004

Certified true translation

Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                     A-551-01

Between:

JAY BASSILA

Applicant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE

PLACE OF ASSESSMENT:                      Montréal, Quebec

REASONS OF MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

DATE OF REASONS:                                 May 26, 2004

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Caputo, Famularo & Buttino

Westmount, Quebec                                      For the applicant

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario                                              For the respondent


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.