Date: 20080208
Docket: A-527-98
Citation: 2008 FCA 51
BETWEEN:
HARRY BELL
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-528-98
ROBERT WALKUS SENIOR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-529-98
PATRICK CHARLIE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-551-98
CORRINE WALKUS
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-552-98
BRIAN WALKUS
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-553-98
DOREEN WALKUS
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-554-98
ROBERT CHARLIE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-555-98
JOHNSON BELL
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-556-98
ALVIN WALKUS
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-557-98
RAYMOND E. CLAIR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-558-98
JOYE WALKUS
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-559-98
HENRY WALKUS
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-560-98
LLOYD WALKUS
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-561-98
JAMES WALKUS
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Docket: A-562-98
CHANTAL CHARLIE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF
COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1]
This
appeal and several others, listed in the style of cause above, were
consolidated and heard together. They addressed decisions of the Tax Court of
Canada concerning income tax exemptions relative to status Indians and fishing
activities and were dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written
disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's bill of costs, prepared for
recovery from the Appellants, Alvin Walkus, Henry Walkus, Lloyd Walkus and Patrick
Charlie (the Appellants). The appellants other than the Appellants have
either settled costs, are deceased or are in bankruptcy. The Respondent's
materials indicate that one-fifteenth (1/15), i.e. $384.31, of the amount of
the bill of costs is payable by each of the Appellants.
[2]
The
Appellants did not file any materials in response to the Respondent's
materials. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that
the Federal Courts Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by
having an assessment officer step away from a neutral position 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. The
total amount claimed is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of
the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $5,764.67.
"Charles
E. Stinson"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-527-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: HARRY
BELL v. HMQ
ASSESSMENT
OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES
E. STINSON
DATED: February 8, 2008
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS:
|
n/a
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
(self-represented)
|
|
Ms. Wendy
Yoshida
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
n/a
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
|
John H. Sims,
Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content