Date: 20060707
Docket: A-558-99
Citation: 2006 FCA 255
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
RACHEL SHILLING
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] This appeal, from a decision of the Federal Court holding that the Respondent's 1995 and 1996 employment income was exempt from income tax pursuant to the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, s. 87, was allowed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Appellant's bill of costs.
[2] The Respondent did not file any materials in response to the Appellant'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, 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 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 Appellant's bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $4,571.80.
"Charles E. Stinson"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-558-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
RACHEL SHILLING
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: July 7, 2006
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
| Mr. John Shipley
|
FOR APPELLANT
|
|
|
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR APPELLANT
|
| Reynolds, Dolgin
Ottawa, ON
|
FOR RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content