Heather Nichol Design Ltd. v. Big UPS Inc., 2007 FC 571

Date: 20070529

Docket: T-1773-06

Citation: 2007 FC 571

BETWEEN:

HEATHER NICHOL DESIGN LTD. c.o.b.a.

NICHOL FINE FOODS

Plaintiff

and

BIG UPS INC.

Defendant

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]               The Court granted default judgment with costs for this action for trademark infringement in relation to crackers. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Plaintiff's bill of costs.

[2]               The Defendant did not file any materials in response to the Plaintiff'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. I examined each item claimed in the bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed in the bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Plaintiff's bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $2,248.59.

"Charles E. Stinson"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          T-1773-06

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          HEATHER NICHOL DESIGN LTD. c.o.b.a.

                                                            NICHOL FINE FOODS. v. BIG UPS INC.

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED:                                                                                 May 29, 2007

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: