Marchand v. Canada (Revenue)
The assessment officer reduced the units claimed under items 5 and 26 because the issues lacked the complexity to warrant maximum units, allowed fees of $600 for those items, refused the claim under item 25 as inapplicable, allowed photocopying costs of $6.25, and fixed total costs at $606.25 with a certificate issued.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2006 FCA 410
- Parties
- Appellant: C. Marguerite Marchand; Respondent: Canada Revenue Agency; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 December 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Assessment of Costs / Post Judgment Costs Assessment by Assessment Officer
- Outcome
- Costs fixed at $606.25 in favour of the respondents; certificate issued.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, Tariff B, Photocopying Costs, Role of Assessment Officer
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
C. Marguerite Marchand
Appellant
Canada Revenue Agency
Respondent
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Assessment of Costs / Post Judgment Costs Assessment by Assessment Officer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether claimed units under Tariff B items 5 and 26 were justified
- 2 Whether item 25 was applicable and payable
- 3 Whether photocopying costs claimed were allowable
Ratio Decidendi
The assessment officer reduced the units claimed under items 5 and 26 because the issues lacked the complexity to warrant maximum units, allowed fees of $600 for those items, refused the claim under item 25 as inapplicable, allowed photocopying costs of $6.25, and fixed total costs at $606.25 with a certificate issued.
Court Disposition
Costs fixed at $606.25 in favour of the respondents; certificate issued.
Orders
- Respondents awarded costs of $606.25 and a certificate to be issued.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Marchand v. Canada (Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-12-14 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 410 File numbers A-574-04 Decision Content Date: 20061214 Docket: A-574-04 Citation: 2006 FCA 410 Between: C. MARGUERITE MARCHAND Appellant AND CANADA REVENUE AGENCY and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] This is an assessment of the respondents’ costs following the order dated January 17, 2005, dismissing the appellant’s motion. At the request of the respondent, the assessment proceeded on the basis of the parties’ written representations. [2] Given that the role of the assessment officer is to fix the amount of costs due to a party when costs have been ordered by the Court, I therefore allow the amount of $600 in fees for services rendered under items 5 (3 units) and 26 (2 units). After reviewing the file, I reduced the number of units claimed for both items, since the complexity of the issues in dispute does not justify awarding the maximum number of units provided in column III of Tariff B. The claim under item 25 is refused as this item is meant to compensate for services rendered after a final judgment. Photocopying costs of $6.25, which have been established by affidavit, are allowed as claimed. [3] In conclusion, the costs of the respondent are fixed at $606.25, and a certificate is issued in this amount. DATED AT MONTRÉAL, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006. Signed: “Michelle Lamy” MICHELLE LAMY ASSESSMENT OFFICER Certified true translation Mary Jo Egan, LLB FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-574-04 Between: C. MARGUERITE MARCHAND Appellant AND CANADA REVENUE AGENCY and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING PLACE OF ASSESSMENT: Montréal, Quebec REASONS BY MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER DATED: December 14, 2006 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John Sims Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For the respondentS