Strachan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 1240

Date: 20081105

Docket: T-966-05

Citation: 2008 FC 1240

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL ANDREW STRACHAN

Applicant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]               The Court dismissed with costs this application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board affirming the revocation of the Applicant’s statutory release. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent’s bill of costs.

[2]               The Applicant did not file any materials in response to the Respondent’s materials. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Courts Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by having an assessment officer step away from a neutral position 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. I examined each item claimed in the bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. Certain items warrant my intervention as I think that the total amount ($6,593.63) claimed is not arguable on the record.

[3]               There appears to have been only one interlocutory application, i.e. the Applicant’s motion for his production from incarceration to argue the judicial review in person, which resulted in an order silent on costs. Further to my conclusions in paragraph 73 of Abbott Laboratories v. Canada (Minister of Health) (2008), 66 C.P.R. (4^th) 301, [2008] F.C.J. No. 870 (A.O.), no costs associated with that order may be claimed and I have therefore disallowed counsel fee items 5 (preparation) and 6 (appearance) and certain associated disbursements ($17.66 and $6.15).

[4]               The record does not indicate that a case management conference was attempted and I therefore disallow fee item 10. The record indicates that the judicial review hearing took about 2.5 hours on a single day. The Respondent is entitled to fee item 13(a) (preparation) for that day, but not to fee item 13(b) for a second day. I assume that the claim for fee item 15 (written argument permitted by the Court) relates to the submissions which were part of the Respondent’s Record. Fee item 15 does not address such submissions. Rather, it addresses separate written submissions prepared in addition to those already in the Record, often after the hearing. That did not occur here. I therefore disallow fee item 15. I disallow fee item 27 (such other services as the assessment officer may allow) as the record does not disclose purpose and relevance. In all other respects, the Respondent’s bill is in order.

[5]               The Respondent’s bill of costs, presented at $6,593.63, is assessed and allowed at $4,049.82.

“Charles E. Stinson”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          T-966-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          MICHAEL ANDREW STRACHAN v. AGC

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED:                                                                                 November 5, 2008

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: