Date: 20031106
Docket: T-149-03
Citation: 2003 FC 1310
BETWEEN:
ARTHUR WEBSTER
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] The Respondent applied for an order striking out or quashing the application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of National Revenue concerning certain assessments under the Income Tax Act. On March 11, 2003, the Court denied that motion with costs forthwith upon taxation at the top end of Column V. The Applicant presented a bill of costs endorsed with an agreement and consent of the Respondent.
[2] Before I was able to sign off on the assessment of costs and issue a certificate of assessment, the Federal Court of Appeal heard an appeal (Court file A-50-03) of an order of the Federal Court which had granted an extension of time to the Applicant to file his application for judicial review. That application for judicial review remained outstanding at the time that the appeal in A-50-03 was heard. On October 21, 2003, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in A-50-03 with costs in that Court and in the Court below, dismissed the Applicant's motion, for want of jurisdiction, for an extension of time to file his application for judicial review and quashed the judicial review. Paragraph [13] of its reasons acknowledged the March 11, 2003 decision above (denying the Respondent's motion to strike out or quash the judicial review), but simply as part of the factual background of the appeal.
[3] Costs awarded for interlocutory proceedings are governed by the orders disposing of them. If the wording of the interlocutory award of costs does not specifically restrict those costs to the interlocutory proceeding, they are taken as so restricted and may be varied or removed as a function of an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, but they cannot be varied or removed by the judgment after trial. If the wording of the judgment for costs on the substantive issues of the litigation does not specifically authorize such costs throughout from institution of the litigation, they are taken as so authorized except where interlocutory orders pre-empt such application of the judgment, i.e. "costs in any event of the cause", "costs", "no costs" etc. The term "costs in the cause" permits recovery of those interlocutory costs only after success in substantive event of the litigation, i.e. judgment after trial.
[4] The March 11, 2003 decision of the Federal Court was interlocutory and did not decide the substantive issues of the judicial review. Said decision was not the subject of the appeal decision in A-50-03. The Federal Court of Appeal as constituted in A-50-03 had no jurisdiction to vary or overturn the March 11, 2003 decision, including its disposition of costs. I allow the Applicant's bill of costs as presented on consent at $3,696.69.
(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"
Assessment Officer
November 6, 2003
Vancouver, B.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-149-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ARTHUR WEBSTER
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT
PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: November 6, 2003
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Armstrong Nikolich for Applicant
Victoria, B.C.
Morris Rosenberg for Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content