Date: 20020515
Docket: T-867-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 565
Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 15th day of May, 2002
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE
IN THE MATTER OF THE PENSION ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-7
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. V-1.2
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-11, s.1
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FEDERAL COURT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD OF CANADA LETTER DATED APRIL 6, 2000 AND IN THE WRITTEN CASE SUMMARY OF THAT DECISION DATED JUNE 9, 1999 AND STYLED AS VRAB FILE NO. 5189592, DECISION NO. 6598664
BETWEEN:
JOHN DOE
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
[1] This is a motion in writing (Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998) made by the applicant pursuant to Rules 403(1)(a) and (2) and Rule 400 (1), (2) and (3) a, c, g, h, i, k and o of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[2] When I rendered judgment in this matter on January 28, 2002, I ordered that the applicant would "have his allowable costs of the application".
[3] These words, "allowable costs" are a direction to the assessment officer for the assessment of the applicant's costs.
[4] I have considered the submissions of both parties and I am of the opinion that I have already made my order as to costs and with that order, the assessment officer can assess the amount of the applicant's costs including the items for which the applicant seeks directions. It is not necessary to issue the directions requested by the applicant.
[5] I am further of the view that Rule 403(1)(a) and (2) in this case, only contemplates giving directions to the assessment officer respecting an order made with respect to costs. It does not contemplate directions which would change the cost order (see Stuart v. Canada (1989) 27 F.T.R. 65 (F.C.T.D.) and Nordholm I/S v. Canada (1996) 107 F.T.R. 317). These two decisions were made under the former Rules of the Court, but the provisions are substantially the same.
[6] The applicant's motion is therefore dismissed.
[7] There shall be no order as to costs of this motion.
ORDER
[8] IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The applicant's motion is dismissed.
2. There shall be no order as to costs of this motion.
"John A. O'Keefe"
J.F.C.C.
Halifax, Nova Scotia
May 15, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-867-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOHN DOE
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF O'KEEFE J.
DATED: Wednesday, May 15, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Written Representations "John Doe" Representing Self
Made By FOR APPLICANT
Written Representations Tracy J. King
Made By FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John Doe
Edmonton, Alberta
FOR APPLICANT
Department of Justice
Edmonton Regional Office
211 Bank of Montreal Building
10199-101 Street
Edmonton, Alberta
T5J 3Y4
FOR RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20020515
Docket: T-867-00
BETWEEN:
JOHN DOE
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER