Docket: 04-A-63
Citation: 2006 FCA 256
BETWEEN:
SATISH KUMAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Willa Doyle
Assessment Officer
[1] This is an assessment of costs pursuant to an Order of the Federal Court of Appeal dated February 28, 2005 dismissing a motion for reconsideration. The Appellant had requested a reconsideration of an Order of the Federal Court of Appeal dated January 25, 2005 in regard to a dismissal of an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada dated August 10, 2004 in which the Tax Court of Canada had refused an extension of time to appeal an August 3, 1999 decision.
[2] On October 13, 2005 the Respondent filed a Bill of Costs with an attached supporting affidavit of disbursements and the Respondent requested the assessment be held in writing.
[3] On October 18, 2005 I issued a timetable for submissions. On November 9, 2005 the Appellant sought a stay of the assessment. Given the consent of the Respondent, and in consideration of the facts presented, the requested extension was granted to both parties with dates in June 2006 for submission, reply and rebuttal material to be filed.
[4] On June 5, 2006 the Appellant filed reply submissions and stated that he did not feel that he should pay the Bill of Costs referring to R. 408(2) of the Federal Courts Rules "set off of costs". In the documentation provided to support his position the Appellant refers to an Order on Federal Court of Appeal file A-482-04. The Bill of Costs presently before me is in relation only to the 04-A-63 file. A thorough review of the documentation for this 04-A-63 file reveals only two Orders; one is the Order of the Federal Court of Appeal dated January 25, 2005 which is silent as to costs and the other is the Order of the Federal Court of Appeal dated February 28, 2005 which states "the motion is dismissed with costs". I must assess the Respondent's Bill of Costs on the documentation on this 04-A-63 file which is presently before me.
[5] In this, as in all assessment of costs proceedings, an Assessment Officer must take a position of neutrality. An Assessment Officer may neither advocate for any one party, nor allow assessable services and disbursements which fall outside of the Federal Courts Rules and the associated tariffs.
[6] Prior to beginning the assessment of the Bill of Costs, I draw counsel's attention to
the May 9, 2006 memorandum from the Honourable Chief Justice Richard and the Honourable Chief Justice Lutfy in regard to the unit value of Federal Courts Rules Tariff B effective April 1, 2005. It is reproduced here for ease of reference:
FROM: Chief Justice Richard
Chief Justice Lutfy
DATE: May 9, 2006
RE: Tariff B - Unit Value
In accordance with Section 4 of Tariff B, we have caused the unit value of the Tariff to be calculated as follows:
CPI (2005) = 128.1x 100 = 124.73
CPI (1994) 102.7
The result of the calculation is greater than 120 but less than 130; therefore, the unit value of the Tariff effective April 1, 2005 will be 120.
[7] Since the unit value of the tariff effective April 1, 2005 was established at 120, the amounts in the Bill of Costs will be adjusted accordingly from 110 to 120 per unit.
[8] The fees claimed by the Respondent in the Bill of Costs are at the lowest possible unit level within the parameters of Column III of Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules. The Respondent has requested three units for item 5 - preparation and filing of a contested motion, including all materials and responses thereto and two units for item 26 - assessment of costs. The fee units are allowed as claimed with the adjustment of unit value to reflect the current Tariff B Unit value as of April 1, 2005.
[9] The disbursements are supported by affidavit evidence and are reasonable in view of the litigation of the file. The disbursements are allowed as claimed. The Respondent's Bill of Costs presented at $602.41 is assessed and allowed in the amount of $652.41.
" Willa Doyle"
Willa Doyle
Assessment Officer
Fredericton, New Brunswick
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: 04-A-63
STYLE OF CAUSE: Satish Kumar
- and-
Her Majesty the Queen
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS -
REASONS BY: Willa Doyle, Assessment Officer
DATED: July 6, 2006
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
FOR THE APPELLANT
J. Smithers FOR THE RESPONDENT
Justice Canada
Halifax, NS