Date: 20020412
Docket: T-1773-99
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 427
BETWEEN:
JORDAN HENDERSON ASSOCIATES
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN RIGHT OF CANADA as represented by
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] The Plaintiff, by its solicitor of record, discontinued this action. The Defendant filed a bill of costs pursuant to Rule 402. I issued a timetable for written submissions. Cynthia Jordan, a principal of the Plaintiff, requested a delay because the solicitor of record no longer represented the Plaintiff. She subsequently filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person. I issued these directions:
The Assessment Officer ... has noted the correspondence and filings concerning both the intention of Cynthia Jordan to represent the Plaintiff and the request for delay of the assessment of costs. He has directed that Rule 120 be brought to the attention of Ms. Jordan and that she be advised that an assessment officer does not exercise the authority of the Court within the meaning of that Rule. He has noted the Defendant's reliance on the forthwith provision in Rule 402 and the opposition to a delay of the assessment of the costs. Therefore, the Assessment Officer has directed that Ms. Jordan will have until February 22, 2002 to serve and file any reply materials for the assessment of costs. That time frame includes time for Ms. Jordan to obtain, if she wishes, a ruling from the Court under Rule 120 and to retain and instruct new counsel, if necessary. The Defendant may serve and file any rebuttal submissions by March 18, 2002.
[2] On February 22, 2002, Ms. Jordan forwarded a letter requesting an unspecified delay for the assessment of costs because of a family medical crisis. The Defendant maintained its position that the assessment should proceed. In early March, the Registry advised both sides that I would be out of the country for approximately one month, but that I would proceed with the assessment upon my return. The record does not disclose any meaningful attempts by the Plaintiff to comply with the Rules concerning representation of a company, nor to arrange a mutually acceptable time frame for resolution with the Defendant, over the past several months. The assessment will proceed on the material to date.
[3] The Federal Court Rules, 1998, do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by an assessment officer abdicating a position of neutrality to act as a 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 a judgment or the tariff. I examined each item claimed in the Defendant's Bill of Costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The total amount claimed for fees and disbursements is arguable within the limit of the tariff. As well, I am satisfied that the doubling of fees under Rule 420(2) should apply further to the Defendant's offer to settle. The Defendant's submissions asserted that doubling should extend to the date of assessment or, in the alternative, to the date of discontinuance. The point is arguable and I allow the doubling of fees to the date of assessment as claimed in the circumstances of this file.
[4] The Defendant's Bill of Costs, presented at $6,221.19 is assessed and allowed at $6,221.19
(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
Vancouver, B.C.
April 12, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1773-99
STYLE OF CAUSE:
JORDAN HENDERSON ASSOCIATES
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN RIGHT OF CANADA as represented by
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS BY: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: April 12, 2002
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg For Defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content