Chu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 430

Date: 20090429

Docket: T-1775-07

Citation: 2009 FC 430

BETWEEN:

PAO CHI CHU

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]               The Court dismissed with costs this appeal of a decision of a Citizenship judge denying the Applicant’s application for citizenship. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondent’s 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 having an assessment officer step away from a neutral position 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. The record discloses counsel for the Respondent forwarding a draft Bill of Costs to opposing counsel and proposing settlement at the amount of $2,121.84. The bill of costs before me shows an amount of $2,481.84, but the written submissions propose assessment at $2,121.84. This latter amount is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Respondent’s bill of costs is allowed at $2,121.84.

“Charles E. Stinson”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          T-1775-07

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          PAO CHI CHU

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED:                                                                                 April 29, 2009

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: