BETWEEN:
and
TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE,
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION and
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Assessment Officer
[1] The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. He also sought, within this proceeding, a stay of proceedings in Federal Court of Appeal file A-505-03, and consolidation of both proceedings. The Court’s order dated February 22, 2006 provided that the “applicant’s letter dated February 3, 2006 is to be considered, at his own request, as a notice of discontinuance under Rule 166, with costs of the application for judicial review against the applicant.” I issued a timetable for written disposition of the bill of costs of the Respondent, Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
[2] The respective submissions from the parties were similar to those led for the assessments of costs in court file A-505-03, reported at Dutchak v. United Transportation Union, [2006] F.C.J. No. 973 (A.O.). I have considered the bill of costs here of Canadian Pacific Railway Company consistent with my approach in said decision. I find said bill of costs reasonable in the circumstances and allow it as presented at $1,096.46.
“Charles E. Stinson”
Assessment Officer
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-403-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: DALE DUTCHAK
Applicant
and
TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE
et al.
Respondents
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
Dale Dutchak
|
ON HIS OWN BEHALF |
|
Karen L.Fleming
|
Canadian Pacific Railway Company |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Caley Wray Toronto, ON |
United Transportation Union
|
|
Canadian Pacific Railway Company Legal Services Department Calgary, AB
|
Canadian Pacific Railway Company |