Obonsawin v. Canada, 2006 FCA 5

Date: 20060105

Docket: A-77-04

Citation: 2006 FCA 5

BETWEEN:

                                                          ROGER OBONSAWIN

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                         - and -

                                                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                            ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]                This appeal addressed an order of the Tax Court of Canada denying the Appellant's motion for a stay pending final disposition of an Ontario Superior Court of Justice action and allowing the Respondent's motion to strike out certain paragraphs of the Appellant's proposed amended notice of appeal. The Appellant discontinued one week before the scheduled hearing date. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Respondent's bill of costs, presented for assessment further to Rule 402 (which provides for costs upon discontinuance).

[2]                The Respondent consented to discontinuance on the basis that the Appellant would pay costs of $923.40. The Respondent's materials include correspondence to opposing counsel inquiring about payment and indicating that, given the requirement for a formal assessment of costs, an additional $440.00 under item 26 for the assessment of costs would be sought, making for total assessable costs of $1,363.40.

[3]                The Appellant 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 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, ie. 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. The amount claimed in total in the bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Respondent's bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $1,363.40.

(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"

      Assessment Officer             

                                                  FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                            NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          A-77-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          ROGER OBONSAWIN

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE

OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                     CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED:                                                                                  January 5, 2006

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Reynolds, Dolgin LLP                                                                FOR APPELLANT

Ottawa, ON

John H. Sims, Q.C.                                                                   FOR RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada