Baird v. Canada, 2006 FC 1045

Date: 20060830

Docket: T-2151-05

Citation: 2006 FC 1045

BETWEEN:

JAMES RUSSELL BAIRD

Plaintiff

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Defendant

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]               The Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought this action for damages exceeding 30 billion dollars relating to his invention addressing problems of spent nuclear fuel and excess nuclear weapons. The Court struck his action without leave to amend and with costs to the Defendant. As well, the Court issued discrete orders dismissing his motions for injunction and preservation of certain patent rights respectively, both with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Defendant’s three bills of costs addressing respectively the three orders.

[2]               The Plaintiff argued that there is no entitlement to costs because he is in the process of appealing the result in each of the three orders. He argued that the record discloses the Court’s recognition of his impecunious status meaning that he cannot afford to pay any assessed costs.

I.          Assessment

[3]               The Court having exercised its discretion under Rule 400 (1) to award costs, I do not think that financial hardship falls within the ambit of “any other matter” in Rule 400(3)(0) as a factor relevant and applicable by an assessment officer, further to Rule 409, to minimize assessed litigation costs. The existence of outstanding appeals does not prevent the Defendant from proceeding with these assessments of costs: see Culhane v. ATP Aero Training Products Inc., [2004] F.C.J. No. 1810 (A.O.) at para. [6].

[4]               Effectively, the absence of any relevant representations by the Plaintiff, which could assist me in identifying issues and making a decision, leaves the bills 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. I examined each item claimed in the three bills of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The amount claimed in total in each bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Defendant’s three bills of costs are assessed and allowed as presented at $364.80 (preservation of patent rights), $364.80 (injunction) and $1,026.73 (strike action) respectively.

“Charles E. Stinson”

FEDERAL COURT

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          T-2151-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          JAMES RUSSELL BAIRD

                                                            - and -

                                                            HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED:                                                                                 August 30, 2006

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: