Grundy v. Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency), 2006 FC 1176

Date: 20061003

Docket: T-98-05

Citation: 2006 FC 1176

BETWEEN:

ROBERT GRUNDY

Applicant

and

CANADA CUSTOMS AND

REVENUE AGENCY

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]               This application for judicial review, seeking relief from penalties and interest relative to the failure to report income, was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent’s revised 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 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 revised bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the amount claimed in total in the revised bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Respondent’s revised bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $2,708.15.

“Charles E. Stinson”

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          T-98-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          ROBERT GRUNDY v. CCRA

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED:                                                                                 October 3, 2006

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: