Hamam v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FC 469

Date: 20080411

Docket: T-656-06

Citation: 2008 FC 469

BETWEEN:

AHMAD HAMAN

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS as represented by

the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]               The Court dismissed with costs this application for judicial review of a decision pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17, confirming the forfeiture of an undeclared amount of about $30,000.00. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment 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. I examined each item claimed in the amended bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the total amount claimed is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $4,543.64.

“Charles E. Stinson”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          T-656-06

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          AHMAD HAMAM v. MPSEP

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED:                                                                                 April 11, 2008

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: