Balogun v. Canada

Balogun v. Canada

Because the respondents did not request costs in their written or oral submissions, the Federal Court judge plainly erred in awarding costs; the appeal is allowed in part to remove the costs provision from the judge's order and no order is made as to the costs of the appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 FCA 350
Parties
Appellant: DR. ABDUR-RASHID BALOGUN; Respondent: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; the words awarding costs to the respondents are struck from the Federal Court order; no order as to costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Judicial Review Procedure, Appellate Remedy
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Judicial Review Costs Costs Award Judicial Review Procedure Appellate Remedy

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DR. ABDUR-RASHID BALOGUN

Appellant

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court judge erred in awarding costs when the respondents did not request them
  2. 2 Whether the order should be amended to remove the costs provision
  3. 3 Whether costs of the appeal should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents did not request costs in their written or oral submissions, the Federal Court judge plainly erred in awarding costs; the appeal is allowed in part to remove the costs provision from the judge's order and no order is made as to the costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; the words awarding costs to the respondents are struck from the Federal Court order; no order as to costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • Strike the words "with costs to the respondents" from the judge's Order of September 23, 2004.
  • No order as to the costs of this appeal.