Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

 

 

 

 

Date: 20060801

Docket: A-225-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 270

 

Between:

 

ALBERT DUTERVILLE

Appellant

and

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondents

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS

MICHELLE LAMY, TAXATION OFFICER

[1]       This is the assessment of costs to be paid to the respondents following the judgment dated February 10, 2006. As requested, the assessment was made without the personal appearance of the parties. Up to now, we have received no answer to our letter dated May 17, 2006 establishing a timetable for the written submissions.

[2]       In these circumstances, the set of costs is assessed as submitted. A certificate is issued in the amount of $523.25 for services rendered under items 21 (2 units) and 26 (2 units) of Tariff B and for disbursements of $43.25 incurred in this case.


DATED AT MONTRÉAL, THIS 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2006.

 

 

Signed: “Michelle Lamy”

MICHELLE LAMY

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

Certified true translation

Michael Palles


                                                  FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                                                                             

                                                      SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

COURT DOCKET NUMBER:        A-225-05

 

 

Between:

 

ALBERT DUTERVILLE

Appellant

 

AND

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

 

Respondents

 

 

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING

 

PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec

 

REASONS BY MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

DATED:                                            AUGUST 1, 2006

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Albert Duterville

Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec                                             For the appellant

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Montréal, Quebec                                                                    For the respondents

 

 

 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.