Date: 20070823
Dockets: A-435-02
A-437-02
Citation: 2007 FCA 271
Docket: A-435-02
BETWEEN:
JAMES P. TURNER
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Docket A-437-02
BETWEEN:
JAGROOP S. GILL
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF
COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1]
The
Court ordered that the respective applications (A-435-02 and A-437-02) for
judicial review of decisions of the Tax Court of Canada concerning deduction of
a business loss in respect of a partnership be consolidated and that court file
A-435-02 be the lead application with the above style of cause. A copy of these
reasons is filed today in court file A-437-02 and applies there accordingly.
The Court dismissed both applications with a single set of costs. I issued a
timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the bill of costs of the
Respondent.
[2]
The
Applicants' materials took the form of allegations of false submissions and
fraudulent conduct by the Respondent. They include a statement of opposition to
the payment of costs. Effectively, the absence of any relevant representations
by the Applicants, which could assist me in identifying issues and making a
decision, leaves the bill of costs unopposed. 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. Certain items warrant my
intervention further to my expressed parameters above and given what I perceive
as general opposition to the bill of costs.
[3]
The
disbursements include $208.50 for an agent's fee associated with preparation
and service of written submissions in response to the Applicants' motion to add
additional evidence to the record for the hearing of the judicial review. A
subsequent order (dated April 27, 2004) dismissed the motion, but was silent on
costs. I disallow the $208.50 further to my conclusions in Balisky v. Canada (Minister of
Natural Resources), [2004] F.C.J. No. 536 (A.O.) at para. 6, and Aird
v. Country
Park Village Properties
(Mainland) Ltd., [2005] F.C.J. No. 1426 (A.O.) at para. 10. There were
other items which might have attracted disagreement, but their total amount is
generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs.
[4]
The
Respondent claimed 3 units at $120.00 per unit under item 26 (assessment of
costs/available range = 2 to 6 units), but argued in rebuttal that the Applicants'
irresponsible and outrageous accusations of criminal conduct by opposing
counsel warrant increased costs. I agree with the Respondent. I cannot exercise
the authority reserved to the Court under Rule 404(1) to increase costs beyond
the default level of Column III in Rule 407. However, further to Rules 405 and
408(3), I have considerable authority concerning the costs for the assessment
process. I increase item 26 to the maximum 6 units. The Respondent's bill of
costs, presented at $2,701.67, is assessed and allowed at $2,853.17.
"Charles
E. Stinson"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: A-435-02
A-437-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: JAMES P. TURNER v. AGC
JAGROOP
S. GILL v. AGC
ASSESSMENT
OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPERANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES
E. STINSON
DATED: August 23, 2007
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS:
|
Mr. James P.
Turner
Mr. Jagroop S.
Gill
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
(self-represented)
FOR THE APPLICANT
(self-represented)
|
|
Mr. Gavin
Laird
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
n/a
|
FOR THE APPLICANTS
|
|
John H. Sims,
Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content