Date: 20060615
Docket: A-53-03
Citation: 2006 FCA 225
BETWEEN:
DAVID M. SOSIAK
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] A copy of these reasons is filed today in Federal Court of Appeal file A-62-03 (David M. Sosiak v. Attorney General of Canada) and applies there accordingly. The Applicant, representing himself, sought judicial review (A-53-03) of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada to quash his tax appeals for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 and several subpoenas. He sought judicial review (A-62-03) of a decision of the Tax Court of Canada dismissing his tax appeal for the year 1999. Discrete judgments in each court file dismissed the respective applications for judicial review with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondent's bill of costs (the two judicial reviews were heard together and the record indicates that only one set of costs is sought).
[2] The Respondent argued that, for the most part, mid-range counsel fees were claimed and the amount of the bill of costs is appropriate for these two matters. The Applicant argued that no costs should be allowed on the basis of a myriad of his allegations of gross misconduct by various judges and officials.
Assessment
[3] Effectively, the absence of any relevant representations by the Applicant, which could assist me in identifying issues and making a decision, means that the bill of costs is not opposed in any rational fashion. 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. I examined each item claimed in the bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters.
[4] I concluded at paragraph [7] in Starlight v. Canada, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1376 (A.O.), that the same point in the ranges throughout the tariff need not be used, as each item for the services of counsel is discrete and must be considered in its own circumstances. As well, broad distinctions may be required between an upper versus lower allowance from available ranges. The Respondent's bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $2,569.82 given that I find that amount to be a reasonable total for costs in the circumstances of two judicial reviews respectively addressing discrete decisions.
"Charles E. Stinson"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-53-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: DAVID M. SOSIAK
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: June 15, 2006
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
| David M. Sosiak
|
ON HIS OWN BEHALF
|
| Roger Leclaire
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
|
|
| John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content