Canada (National Revenue) v. Selvanayagan, 2010 FC 749

Date: 20100715

Docket: T-1569-09

Citation: 2010 FC 749

BETWEEN:

 

MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

Applicant

 

and

 

SIVANANTHAN SELVANAYAGAN

 

Respondent

 

 

 

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS

 

Johanne Parent

Assessment Officer

[1]               Pursuant to the Order of December 1, 2009 made under Section 231.7 of the Income Tax Act, the Court ordered the respondent to comply with the request for information and awarded costs to the applicant in accordance with the Tariff, payable forthwith. A timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the applicant’s Bill of Costs was issued on April 13, 2010 and sent to both parties.

 

[2]               Counsel for the applicant filed representations within the prescribed timeframe. Submissions in reply on behalf of the respondent were not received by the Registry of the Court in the allocated timeframe, nor was any request to extend the time to file said submissions received. In Dahl v. Canada, 2007 FC 192, [2007] F.C.J. No. 256, my colleague stated at paragraph 2:

Effectively, the absence of any relevant representations by the Plaintiff, which could assist me in identifying issues and making a decision, leaves the bill of costs unopposed. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Courts Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by an assessment officer stepping away from a position of neutrality 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.

 

 

 

[3]               In accordance with the above referenced comments and considering the lack of challenge by the opposing party, I am prepared to determine the weight that should be given to the factors submitted in the applicant’s Bill of Costs.

 

[4]               In considering the assessable services claimed under Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules, the fees claimed for the preparation and filing of an originating document (Item 1), preparation and filing of a contested motion (Item 5) and appearance on a motion (Item 6) are assessed as claimed. The fees claimed under Item 2 for preparation and filing of all defences, replies, counterclaims or respondent’s records and materials, will not be allowed as such documents have already been claimed and allowed under Item 1.

 

[5]               I examined the disbursements claimed along with the supporting material and consider them necessary charges to the conduct of this matter. The amounts are reasonable and, therefore, allowed.

 

[6]               The bill of costs is allowed for a total amount of $1880.04.

 

“Johanne Parent”

 

Toronto, Ontario

July 15, 2010

FEDERAL COURT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

DOCKET:                                          T-1569-09

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE v.    SIVANANTHAN SELVANAYAGAN

 

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

 

 

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    JOHANNE PARENT

 

DATED:                                                                                 JULY 15, 2010

 

 

 

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:

 

Samantha Hurst	FOR THE APPLICANT
None	FOR THE RESPONDENT (Self-Represented)

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada	FOR THE APPLICANT
N/A	FOR THE RESPONDENT (Self-Represented)