Date: 20060224
Docket: A-796-00
Citation: 2006 FCA 85
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
- and -
LESLIE ANN RUTLEDGE
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] This appeal, addressing a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, was allowed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the Appellant's bill of costs. Service of assessment documents and of notice of this assessment of costs on the Respondent was problematic. She no longer is represented by counsel. I directed that the Registry issue the following letter on December 19, 2005, to the Respondent's attention:
A copy of the letter dated November 7, 2005 to your attention (returned by Canada Post and marked "MOVED/UNKNOWN") containing the directions of the Assessment Officer is attached hereto. Pursuant to said directions, the Appellant filed materials (a copy is attached hereto) supporting the Crown's bill of costs, together with proof of an unsuccessful attempt to serve said materials on you.
Having regard to Rule 140(3), the Assessment Officer has directed that I post this letter, together with its attachments, on the public notice board for the Registry of the Federal Court of Appeal at 701 West Georgia Street, 3rd Floor, Vancouver, BC, until January 13, 2006. Should you become aware of this posting, you may take possession of this letter only by attending at the public counter of the Registry (at 701 West Georgia Street, 3rd Floor, Vancouver, BC) and requesting a Registry Officer to release it to you and to record that event on the Court record. The Assessment Officer has directed that the Respondent may serve and file any reply materials by January 31, 2006 and that the Appellant may serve and file any rebuttal materials by February 17, 2006.
The Respondent did not take possession of the letter. Litigants may not like the consequences of court process, but that does not shield them from their obligations, such as the provision of a viable address for service. I am satisfied that sufficient effort was made to give the Respondent notice of this assessment 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, 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. There were items for services of counsel 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 $5,295.80.
(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"
Assessment Officer
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-796-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
LESLIE ANN RUTLEDGE
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: February 24, 2006
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Linda L. Bell FOR APPELLANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR APPELLANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content