Date: 20011003
Docket: A-538-98
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 289
BETWEEN:
FRED TURNER
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] The applicant (appellant), pursuant to Rule 414 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, challenges the assessment of his costs by the Assessment Officer, Charles E. Stinson, whose assessment is dated February 22, 2001.
[2] The assessment results from the applicant's successful appeal of a decision of the Tax Court dated August 18, 1998. On June 27, 2000, the Federal Court of Appeal delivered the following judgment:
"The appeal is allowed with costs, the judgment of the Tax Court of Canada dated August 18, 1998 is set aside and the appellant's appeal to the Tax Court of Canada is allowed with respect to the claim for an allowable business investment loss based on the shares having an adjusted cost base of $55,090."
[3] Although the applicant claimed that he was entitled to costs in the sum of $275,268.12, the Assessment Officer, after a thorough and detailed analysis, fixed his costs at $2,381.22.
[4] The main item claimed by the applicant was a sum of $265,700., based on the number of hours spent by him times the number of units for the particular service listed in the Tariff times $100. As to the disbursements claimed, they amount to a sum of $9,568.12. The applicant argued, both before me and Mr. Stinson, that on the authority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal's decision in Skidmore v. Blackmore, [1995] 4 W.W.R. 524, he was entitled to compensation for his successful efforts, in the same way as if he had been represented by a lawyer.
[5] I agree entirely with Mr. Stinson, for the reasons he gives , that the applicant is not entitled to the compensation he seeks.
[6] With respect to the other matters raised by the applicant in challenging the cost assessment, I only wish to say that the applicant has not persuaded me that Mr. Stinson made any error.
[7] One last point. In his Notice of Motion, the applicant raised an issue as to the correctness of the Court of Appeal's written decision, dated June 27, 2000. The applicant's submission is that the written decision is not in accord with the oral decision rendered from the Bench on June 27, 2000. Specifically, at paragraphs 3 and 4 of his Notice of Motion, the applicant makes the following submissions:
3. The Appellant is requesting a review as to why the last part of the order given on June 27, 2000 referring to "including those costs set aside by the previous courts" was left off the written order.
4. The Appellant submits that there were two other people in the court who are prepared to swear affidavits to the fact that they heard the Judge in his oral judgment say "including those costs set aside by the previous court". It is therefore requested that the order dated June 27, 2000 be amended to reflect the complete judgment.
[8] The applicant cannot possibly succeed on this argument. As the respondent points out, it was open to the applicant to seek, pursuant to Rule 397, a reconsideration from the Court of Appeal with respect to that part of the oral decision which the applicant contends is missing from the written decision. The applicant cannot, by way of an application under Rule 414, obtain a correction of the Court of Appeal's decision.
[9] For these reasons, the applicant's motion shall be dismissed.
Marc Nadon
Judge
MONTREAL, Quebec
October 3, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-538-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: FRED TURNER
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: April 26, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NADON
DATED: October 3, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Fred Turner
(representing himself) FOR APPELLANT
Mr. David I. Besler FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
Edmonton, Alberta FOR RESPONDENT
Email this Content