Date: 20090224
Docket: T-1040-07
Citation: 2009 FC 194
BETWEEN:
ALLEN LABOUCAN, FLOYD NOSKIYE,
LESLIE JOE LABOUCAN,
MONA DUMAS, ROBERT CHARLIE NANOOCH
and SOLOMON ST. ARNAULT
Applicants
and
GUS LOONSKIN, ARTHUR LABOUCAN,
JOHN M. LABOUCAN,
DANIEL NANOOCH, ALFRED JOE SEESEEQUON,
FLOYD AUGER,
HENRY GRANDEJAMBE, MICHAEL NANOOCH,
LORNE TALLCREE, DELMER D’OR, LESTER
NANOOCH
and LITTLE RED RIVER CREE NATION #447
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF
COSTS - REASONS
Bruce Preston
Assessment Officer
[1]
By
way of judgment dated February 15, 2008, the Court dismissed
the Applicants’ Application for Judicial Review, with costs.
[2]
On
March 25, 2008, the Respondents filed their Bill of Costs together with a
letter requesting an assessment of their Bill of Costs.
[3]
On
May
15, 2008,
Charles E. Stinson, Senior Assessment Officer, issued the following oral
direction (confirmed in writing):
The Senior
Assessment Officer, Charles E. Stinson, has noted the bill of costs of the
Respondents filed March 25, 2008 and has further noted that its assessment appears
appropriate for disposition by way of written submissions.
Therefore,
the Senior Assessment Officer has directed that:
a) the
Respondents may serve and file all materials (if not already done), including
the bill of costs, supporting affidavit and written submissions, by June
10, 2008;
b) the
Applicants may serve and file any reply materials by July 4, 2008;
c) the
Respondents may serve and file any rebuttal materials by July
25, 2008.
[4]
Pursuant
to that direction the Respondents have filed their Bill of Costs, and the
affidavit of James A. Duke, Q.C. The Applicants have failed to file any
materials in opposition to the Bill of Costs.
[5]
In
the absence of any submissions in opposition to the Bill of Costs, Charles E. Stinson,
Senior Assessment Officer, determined in Dahl v. Canada, 2007 F.C. 192,
[2007] F.C.J. No. 256, 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.
[6]
Having
reviewed the file it is clear that I am without jurisdiction to allow Item 15, the
preparation and filing of written argument, where requested or permitted by the
Court. I can find no order or direction of the Court requesting or permitting
written argument. Further, the only written argument filed by the Respondents is
the Memorandum of Fact and Law contained in the Respondents Application Record,
which is provided for under Item 2.
[7]
With
the exception of Item 15, having reviewed the file and the Court’s Reasons for
Judgment and Judgment, all other assessable services and disbursements are
allowed as claimed.
[8]
The
Respondents’ costs, presented at $3,311.75, are assessed and allowed at
$2,591.75. A certificate of assessment will be issued.
“Bruce Preston”
Toronto, Ontario
February 24, 2009
Email this Content