Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content




     Date: 20000707

     Docket: A-377-96

BETWEEN:

     ALBERT KORMAN

     Appellant

     AND

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

     Respondent


     TAXATION OF COSTS - REASONS


MICHELLE LAMY, TAXING OFFICER


[1]      This is an appeal from a decision by the Tax Court of Canada dismissed with costs on May 14, 1999. Pursuant to that judgment, the respondent on May 25, 2000 filed her bill of costs and asked that it be taxed without a personal appearance by the parties.

[2]      On June 1, 2000, we forwarded a copy of the bill to the appellant and asked him to submit his comments by June 19, 2000. As no submissions have been made, we are prepared to tax the respondent's costs.

[3]      The respondent's fees are allowed in the amount of $700 for the following Tariff B items: item 19 (5 units) and item 26 (2 units). Under item 26, I have reduced the number of units requested to two as the proceeding was not opposed. The disbursements in the amount of $35.31 are allowed as such.

[4]      The respondent's costs resulting from this appeal are taxed in the amount of $735.31 and a certificate is issued for that amount.


     (signed)

     MICHELLE LAMY

     TAXING OFFICER

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

July 7, 2000


Certified true translation




Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.




     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     APPEAL DIVISION



     Date: 20000707

     Docket: A-377-96

Between:

     ALBERT KORMAN

     Appellant

     and

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

     Respondent








     TAXATION OF COSTS - REASONS






     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     APPEAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD


COURT FILE No.:          A-377-96

BETWEEN:

     ALBERT KORMAN

     Appellant

     AND

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

     Respondent

TAXATION OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE


PLACE OF TAXATION:      Montréal, Quebec

REASONS OF M. LAMY, TAXING OFFICER

DATE OF REASONS:          July 7, 2000

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Demers, Bureau, Borduas      for the appellant

Sherbrooke, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg      for the respondent

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

 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.