Comprehensive Health Clinic Inc. v. Canada
Because the appellant filed no response and the items claimed were generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs and within the authority of the judgment and tariff, the assessment officer, while constrained to neutrality and prohibited from certifying items outside the judgment or tariff, properly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2006 FCA 288
- Parties
- Appellant: Comprehensive Health Clinic Inc.; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 August 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Assessment of Costs / Assessment by Assessment Officer
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs; respondent's bill of costs assessed and allowed
- Legal Topics
- Procedural Fairness, Informal Procedure in Tax Court, Bill of Costs Assessment, Duties of Assessment Officer, Federal Courts Rules
- 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
Comprehensive Health Clinic Inc.
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Assessment of Costs / Assessment by Assessment Officer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the assessment officer may abandon neutrality and act as advocate for an absent litigant
- 2 Whether items in a bill of costs that fall outside the authority of the judgment and tariff can be certified
- 3 Whether the total amount claimed in the bill of costs is reasonable in the circumstances
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant filed no response and the items claimed were generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs and within the authority of the judgment and tariff, the assessment officer, while constrained to neutrality and prohibited from certifying items outside the judgment or tariff, properly assessed and allowed the respondent's bill of costs in full at $2,790.00.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs; respondent's bill of costs assessed and allowed
Orders
- Respondent's bill of costs assessed and allowed in the amount of $2,790.00
- Assessment conducted in writing without personal appearance of the parties
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Comprehensive Health Clinic Inc. v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-08-29 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 288 File numbers A-487-03 Decision Content Date: 20060829 Docket: A-487-03 Citation: 2006 FCA 288 BETWEEN: COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CLINIC INC. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal, addressing the procedural fairness of the informal procedure proceedings in the Tax Court of Canada, was dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent’s 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 an assessment officer stepping away from a position of neutrality 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the amount claimed in total in the bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Respondent’s bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $2,790.00. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-487-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CLINIC INC. - and – HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: August 29, 2006 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: n/a FOR THE APPELLANT Ifeanyichukwu Nwachukwu FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Pedwell & Pedwell St. Catharines, ON FOR THE APPELLANT Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT