[1] Following the decision of this Court in Her Majesty the Queen v. Linda Munro, 98 D.T.C. 6443 and based on the reasons articulated by Tax Court Judge R.D. Bell in his judgment of March 16, 2001, we are satisfied that this application for judicial review should be dismissed without costs.

[2] From the record below, we can find no legal or factual errors that require the intervention of this Court.

[3] While the Informal Procedure set out in the Tax Court of Canada Rules contemplates representation by an agent, agents should not be allowed to claim indirectly under Rule 12(3) under the words "such other disbursements," what is clearly denied to them under Rule 11 which restricts allowable fees to the services of counsel.

"B. Malone"

J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET: A-470-01

STYLE OF CAUSE: THOMAS COSTIGANE

Applicant

- and -

DEPUTY ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2002

PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY: MALONE J.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2002.

DATED: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2002

APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Thomas Costigane

For the Applicant, on his own behalf

Ms. Sointula Kirkpatrick

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:Thomas Costigane

35 Harvard Road

Guelph, Ontario

N1G 3A2

For the Applicant, on his own behalf

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Date: 20020912

Docket: A-470-01

BETWEEN:

THOMAS COSTIGANE

Applicant

- and -

DEPUTY ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT

You are here

Costigane v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 327

Citations2002 FCA 327

Case tabs

Citations
2002 FCA 327