BETWEEN:
and
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Assessment Officer
[1] This appeal from a dismissal by the Federal Court of an application for judicial review of an Investigator's decision concerning the rescinding of an offer of employment to the Appellant in the Public Service was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's revised bill of costs.
[2] The Appellant did not file any materials in response to the Respondent's materials. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Courts Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by having an assessment officer step away from a neutral position to act as the litigant's advocate in challenging given items in a bill of costs. However, the assessment officer cannot certify unlawful items, i.e. those outside the authority of the judgment and the tariff. I examined each item claimed in the revised bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. In the circumstances of this litigation, the total amount claimed in the revised bill of costs is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs. The Respondent asks for maximum Rule 408(3) costs of $720.00 (6 units at $120 per unit) for the assessment of costs. Here, I allow only the minimum 2 units ($240.00). The Respondent's revised bill of costs, presented at $2,372.15 is assessed and allowed at $2,612.15.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-306-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: HENSLEY ORIJI v. AGC
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
APPEARANCES:
n/a |
|
Michael Roach
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
n/a
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada |