Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20050128

Dockets: A-609-00

A-610-00

Citation: 2005 FCA 40

BETWEEN:

                                                                CHUNG J. HUH

HUN HUH

Applicants

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

                                                                             

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

BRUCE PRESTON

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1]                On December 11, 2005, the Court heard the judicial review applications on files A-609-00 and A-610-00. These files were dealt with simultaneously.

[2]                On August 15, 2001, the Court granted, with costs, the Respondent's motion on file A-610-00 to strike certain paragraphs of the Applicant's Affidavit. On December 11, 2002, the Court dismissed the Applicants' Application for judicial review with one set of costs for both files.

[3]                On August 6, 2004, the Respondent filed a Bill of Costs together with a letter requesting the Assessment be heard by way of teleconference.

[4]                On October 28, 2004, Applicant's counsel filed a motion for an order removing Wilson Vukelich LLP as solicitor of record. On November 22, 2004, the Court ordered Wilson Vukelich LLP removed as solicitor of record effective upon filing of proof that a copy of this said order has been served on the Applicant. On December 1, 2004, Wilson Vukelich LLP filed an Affidavit of service confirming service of said order on the Applicant on November 30, 2004.

[5]                Having reviewed the file, it appeared that the issues were straight forward and this matter was appropriate to be dealt with in writing. On December 3, 2004, a letter was issued to the parties setting a timetable for filing submissions.

[6]                The time for filing submissions has now lapsed and the Applicant has not filed any materials in response to the Respondent's written submissions.

[7]                In these circumstances, an assessment officer must, from a position of neutrality, determine the reasonableness of the items claimed in the Bill of Costs. This must be done to ensure items claimed are within the terms of any judgments and orders, but also to ensure the items claimed are allowed under the Rules and Tariff.

[8]                Having reviewed the Bill of Costs and the written submissions of the Respondent, in the circumstances of the present case, the costs are allowed as presented in the amount of $4,611.87, plus $660.00 for the Assessment of costs for a total of $5,271.87.

[9]                A certificate of assessment will issue in the amount of $5,271.87.

         "Bruce Preston"

                                                                                                                                       Bruce Preston              

                                                                                                        Assessment Officer

Toronto, Ontario                                                          

January 28, 2005

                                                                             


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                            NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          A-609-00; A-610-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          Chung J. Huh

Hun Huh                        

Applicants

and

AGC                             

Respondent

                                                                             

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario            

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

REASONS BY:                                 Bruce Preston, Assessment Officer

DATED:                                             January 28, 2005

APPEARANCES:

On Own                                              FOR THE APPLICANT

John Sims                                            FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Chung J Huh

Hun Huh                                                                                  

Toronto, Ontario                                  FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr John Sims

Deputy Attorney General of CanadaFOR 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.