Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                                                                                                   Date: 20040330

                                                                                                     Docket: A-591-01

                                                                                                                 Citation: 2004 FCA 137

[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

Between:

                                                               PIERRE VÉZINA

                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                            and

                                          ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                            (MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE)

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

                                                ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS

FRANÇOIS MARTIN, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

[1         This assessment of costs follows a judgment by Desjardins, Létourneau and Nadon J.J.A. on February 5, 2003, dismissing the application for judicial review, with costs to the respondent.

[2]        Counsel for the respondent filed his bill of costs on December 15, 2003, accompanied by an application for a decision without personal appearance of the parties.

[3]       The record shows that the respondent’s bill of costs was served on the applicant on December 11, 2003.

[4]        On January 7, 2004, a timetable was established and was forwarded to the applicant to enable him to provide his written submissions, which he has yet to do. In light of the foregoing, I am ready to assess costs in favour of the respondent.

[5]        The fees requested are allowed with the exception of the application under Item 26 for assessment of costs. Since the assessment of costs has not been challenged, 2 units are allowed.

[6]        The disbursements supported by Valérie Tardif’s affidavit are awarded as requested.

[7]        The respondent’s costs are therefore assessed and allowed in the amount of $2,927.69.

                                                                                                            Signed: “François Martin”   

FRANÇOIS MARTIN           

                                                                                                            ASSESSMENT OFFICER

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

March 30, 2004


                                                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                                                                             

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:                                                 A-591-01

Between:

                                                               PIERRE VÉZINA

                                                                                                                                          Applicant

                                                                             and

                                           ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                            (MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE)

                                                                                                                                         Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE

PLACE OF ASSESSMENT:                                                             Montréal, Quebec

REASONS BY FRANÇOIS MARTIN, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

DATED:                                                                  March 30, 2004


NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

François De Vette

Montréal, Quebec                                                                For the Applicant

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario                                                                     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.