Browning v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 388

Date: 20100412

Docket: T-270-09

Citation: 2010 FC 388

BETWEEN:

JULIAN BROWNING

Applicant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Bruce Preston

Assessment Officer

[1]               By way of Reasons for Judgment and Judgment dated October 27, 2009, the Court dismissed the Application for Judicial Review, with costs to the Respondent.

[2]               On February 4, 2010 the Respondent filed its Bill of Costs. On February 5, 2010 Christine Ball, assessment officer issued directions for the filing of written submissions. The Respondent has filed materials in support of its Bill of Costs, however the Applicant has not responded. As the time limits for the filing of submissions have now passed I will proceed with the assessment.

[3]               In Reginald R. Dahl v. HMQ 2007 FC No.192  at paragraph 2, the assessment officer stated:

Effectively, the absence of any relevant representations by the Plaintiff, which could assist me in identifying issues and making a decision, leaves the bill 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.

[4]               Following these reasons, I have reviewed the file; particularly the materials filed in support of the Bill of Costs, and find the amounts claimed under Item 13, Item 14, Item 25 and Item 26 to be reasonable and necessary. I will allow these as claimed. I will also allow the disbursements as submitted.

[5]               Having regard to Item 2, I cannot allow this item as it has been decided on several occasions that the preparation and filing of a Notice of Appearance is not recoverable under Item 2. I have however previously decided that the services related to a Notice of Appearance may be claimed under Item 27. Following my decision in Toronto Sun Wah Trading Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FC 1037, I will allow 1 unit under Item 27 for the Notice of Appearance.

[6]               For the above reasons, the Bill of Costs presented at $2,329.77 is assessed and allowed at $1,549.77. A certificate of assessment will be issued.

    “Bruce Preston”

Toronto, Ontario

April 12, 2010

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                      T-270-09

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                      JULIAN BROWNING v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

PLACE OF ASSESSMENT:                         TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                         BRUCE PRESTON

DATED:                                                            APRIL, 12, 2010

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: