Date: 20060622
Docket: T-522-05
Citation: 2006 FC 801
BETWEEN:
STEPHEN ANDREW MCRAE
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
PAUL G.C. ROBINSON
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
[1] The Respondent filed the Bill of Costs on March 28, 2006 and requested an assessment by way of written submissions for this judicial review. The proceeding arose from a Notice of Application in which the Applicant sought a judicial review of the decision dated February 16, 2005 by the National Parole Board to revoke the Applicant's parole which had been granted in 2002. The Applicant discontinued this judicial review on January 11, 2006.
[2] I issued directions on March 30, 2006 setting a timetable for the filing of all materials in support and in opposition to the Respondent's Bill of Costs.
[3] I note that my directions dated March 30, 2006 setting a timetable for the filing of all materials were sent by facsimile and regular mail on the same date to the Applicant's and Respondent's respective solicitors. To date, neither of the parties has filed any further material with regard to this assessment of costs. In light of the foregoing and in compliance with the Respondent's written request, the assessment of costs has proceeded without personal appearance of the parties.
[4] In this, as in all assessment of costs proceedings, I must take a position of neutrality. An Assessment Officer may neither advocate for any one party, nor allow assessable services and disbursements which fall outside of the Federal Courts Rules and the associated tariffs. In addition, I must adhere to the intent of any decision of the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal which awards costs or gives directions to an assessment officer regarding specific issues which may be considered.
[5] Rule 400 (1) of the Federal Courts Rules confers full discretionary power to the Court over the amount and allocation of costs. However, I note that Rule 402 of the Federal Courts Rules states:
402 - Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or agreed by the parties, a party against whom an action, application or appeal has been discontinued or against whom a motion has been abandoned is entitled to costs forthwith, which may be assessed and the payment of which may be enforced as if judgment for the amount of the costs had been given in favour of that party.
As outlined by the Respondent in the letter of submissions dated March 27, 2006 "...the Applicant unilaterally discontinued this matter." In the absence of an order otherwise from the Federal Court, I am of the opinion that Rule 402 allows the Respondent to claim the respective assessable services and disbursements in the Bill of Costs.
[6] It is appropriate in these circumstances that I rely on subsection 4 of the Federal Courts Act and the definition of an assessment officer as outlined in Rule 2 of the Federal Courts Rules which state respectively:
ss.4 - The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court - Trial Division is continued under the name "Federal Court" in English and "Cour fédérale" in French. It is continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
Rule 2 - The following definitions apply in these Rules.
... "assessment officer" means an officer of the Registry designated by an order of the Court, a judge or a prothonotary, and includes, in respect of a reference, the referee presiding in the reference.
Considering all the above, it is my opinion that I do have jurisdiction to assess the Bill of Costs in this proceeding.
[7] This assessment of the Bill of Costs has proceeded by way of written submissions. It is my opinion that they were simple in nature and the Respondent did participate in the filing of materials which did assist me in the assessment of the Bill of Costs. I allow 1 unit, 1 unit and 1 unit respectfully for the Item 27 (such other services as may be allowed by the assessment officer or ordered by the Court - filing Notice of Appearance), the Item 27 (such other services as may be allowed by the assessment officer or ordered by the Court - Drafting and service of Respondent's Submissions re: Status Review) and the Item 25 (services after judgment not otherwise specified - client consultation). I reduce Item 26 (assessment of costs) to 2 units for the reasons I have outlined in the first two sentences of this paragraph. The total assessable services of 5 units ($600.00) plus $18.19 for disbursements which includes GST will be allowed in their entirety since, in my opinion, they were reasonable, necessary for this judicial review and have been supported by the Affidavit of Jenie Sing, sworn March 27, 2006.
[8] The Bill of Costs in T-522-05 is assessed and allowed in the amount of $600.00 for assessable services and disbursements of $18.19 which includes applicable GST. A certificate is issued in this Federal Court proceeding for $618.19 payable by the Applicant to the Respondent.
"Paul Robinson"
Paul G.C. Robinson
Assessment Officer
Toronto, Ontario
June 22, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-522-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: STEPHEN ANDREW MCRAE
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -
REASONS BY: PAUL G.C. ROBINSON, Assessment Officer
DATED: June 22, 2006
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Edward G. Spong
Barrister and Solicitor
Whitby, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content