[1] The Respondent was awarded costs of this appeal. The Appellant did not respond to notice of the timetable issued for written disposition of the Respondent's Bill of Costs. The Federal Court Rules, 1998 do not contemplate a litigant, having proper notice of an assessment of costs and choosing not to participate, as was the case here, benefiting by an assessment officer abdicating 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 Respondent's Bill of Costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. Although there are difficulties with the choice of certain fee items, the total amount claimed for fees could be arguable within the limit of the tariff.
[2] The Respondent's Bill of Costs, presented at $2,314.55 is assessed and allowed at $2,314.55.
(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"
Assessment Officer
Vancouver, B.C.
February 28, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-537-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: BLAKE WRIGHT
-and
Appellant
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS BY: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: February 28, 2002
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Zipp & Company for Appellant Coquitlam, B.C.
Morris Rosenberg for Respondent Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content