Baker v. Dysart, 2011 FC 672

Date: 20110610

Docket: 10-T-48

Citation: 2011 FC 672

BETWEEN:

          ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]               The Court dismissed with costs to the Respondents, Jack Dysart, Shirley Brightnose, Brian Wood, Louis Spence and Esther Dysart (the Dysart Respondents), this application for an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of a decision of an Appeal Committee established under a First Nations Election Procedures Code. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the bill of costs of the Dysart Respondents.

[2]               The Applicant did not file any materials in response to the Dysart Respondents’ 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.

[3]               Although there were items in the bill of costs of the Dysart Respondents which might have attracted disagreement, its total amount is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $2,912.

“Charles E. Stinson”

Vancouver, BC

June 10, 2011

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          10-T-48

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          CHRIS BAKER v. JACK DYSART et al.

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    Charles E. Stinson

DATED:                                                                                 June 10, 2011

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: