Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19990518


Docket: 98-T-46

BETWEEN:

     DAVID IAIN TENCH

     Applicant

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

     Respondent

     ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

FRANÇOIS PILON

[1]      The Applicant's motion to extend time for the filing of an Application for Judicial Review was dismissed with costs on November 18, 1998.

[2]      Ms. Kathryn Kielly submitted the Bill of Costs on behalf of the Respondent. The applicant, Mr. David Tench, did not appear at the taxation hearing, although having been served with a copy of the Bill of Costs and of the Appointment.

[3]      In the Bill of Costs, Ms. Kielly asked for 5 units for the preparation and filing of Respondent's Motion Record (item 5). The five (5) units will be allowed as requested. Respondent's Motion Record was comprehensive and elaborate in the circumstances. Moreover, counsel was also served with the Applicant's response to her Motion Record which included a letter, an affidavit and a Memorandum of Fact and Law. The two (2) units requested to assess costs are at the bottom of the scale and are therefore allowed.

[4]      In conclusion, the Respondent's Bill of Costs is assessed in the amount of $700.00. A Certificate of Assessment will issue accordingly.

                                                              François Pilon

                                 Assessment Officer

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

STYLE OF CAUSE:      David Iain Tench

                     - and -

                 Her Majesty the Queen

COURT NO.:          98-T-46

DATE OF HEARING:      May 18, 1999

PLACE OF HEARING:      Halifax, Nova Scotia

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS BY:      François Pilon

                             Assessment Officer

DATE OF REASONS:      May 18, 1999

APPEARANCES:

Kathryn Kielly      for the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Mr. Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada      for the Respondent


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.