Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20040805

Docket: T-2173-01

Citation: 2004 FC 1067

BETWEEN:

                                                                ARTHUR ROSS

                                                                                                                     Respondent (Applicant)

                                                                           and

                                THE WARDEN OF BOWDEN INSTITUTION # 3 and

                           THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS CANADA and

                                                THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

                                                                                                                 Applicants (Respondents)

                                            ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

CHARLES. E. STINSON

Assessment Officer

[1]                The Applicant is a federal inmate who wished to raise privacy issues. The Court issued a number of orders, one of which struck the Applicant's application for judicial review with costs in favour of the Respondents, the Warden of Bowden Institution # 3 and the Commissioner of Corrections Canada (hereafter "the Respondents"). The Applicant's appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable, as well as adjustments thereto, for disposition in writing of the Respondents' bill of costs.

[2]                The Respondents argued further to Industrial Milk Producers Association . v British Columbia (Milk Board) [1998] F.C.J. No. 537 (T.O.) that an order striking a proceeding with costs effectively allows the costs of the proceeding to date, including the application to strike. The Respondents relied upon Forest v. Canada (Attorney General) [2002] F.C.J. No. 713 (F.C.T.D.) and Henry v Canada, [1987] F.C.J. No. 307 (F.C.T.D.) to argue that neither the ability to pay nor the difficulty in collection should be factors in the consideration of costs. The Respondents asserted that certain of the Applicant's submissions should be disregarded because they are extremely derogatory and disrespectful to both courts. Essentially, the Applicant argued that extracting costs from an inmate was unfair.

Assessment

[3]                My reaction to the Applicant's submissions is similar to that in paragraph [4] of Rolls-Royce plc v. Fitzwilliam, [2004] F.C.J. No. 626 (A.O.), i.e. effectively, the absence of any relevant representations on the part of the Applicant which could assist me in identifying issues and making a decision leaves the Respondents' bill unopposed in any rational fashion. I have considered the Respondents' bill of costs consistent with my approach in Rolls-Royce (supra) and allow it as presented at $1,320.00

(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"

             Assessment Officer

Vancouver, B.C.

August 5, 2004

                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                            NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                                               T-2173-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          Arthur Ross v. The Warden of Bowden Institution # 3 et al.

                                                                             

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS BY:              Charles E. Stinson

DATED:                                                                                  August 5, 2004

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: