Bell v. Canada
The assessment officer examined each claimed item against the authority of the judgment and the tariff, found the total claimed to be reasonable within the limits of the award of costs, and allowed the bill as presented in the amount of $5,764.67, allocating one‑fifteenth ($384.31) to each appellant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 FCA 51
- Parties
- Appellant: Harry Bell; Appellant: Robert Walkus Senior; Appellant: Patrick Charlie; Appellant: Corrine Walkus; Appellant: Brian Walkus; Appellant: Doreen Walkus; Appellant: Robert Charlie; Appellant: Johnson Bell; Appellant: Alvin Walkus; Appellant: Raymond E. Clair; Appellant: Joye Walkus; Appellant: Henry Walkus; Appellant: Lloyd Walkus; Appellant: James Walkus; Appellant: Chantal Charlie; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 February 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (tax) / Assessment of Costs
- Outcome
- Respondent's bill of costs allowed in full
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, Status Indians Income Tax Exemption, Fishing Activities, Consolidation of Appeals
- 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
Harry Bell
Appellant
Robert Walkus Senior
Appellant
Patrick Charlie
Appellant
Corrine Walkus
Appellant
Brian Walkus
Appellant
Doreen Walkus
Appellant
Robert Charlie
Appellant
Johnson Bell
Appellant
Alvin Walkus
Appellant
Raymond E. Clair
Appellant
Joye Walkus
Appellant
Henry Walkus
Appellant
Lloyd Walkus
Appellant
James Walkus
Appellant
Chantal Charlie
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal (tax) / Assessment of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether individual items in the bill of costs are allowable under the judgment and the tariff
- 2 Whether and how costs should be allocated among multiple appellants
- 3 Whether an assessment officer can act as an advocate for a litigant in disputing a bill of costs
Ratio Decidendi
The assessment officer examined each claimed item against the authority of the judgment and the tariff, found the total claimed to be reasonable within the limits of the award of costs, and allowed the bill as presented in the amount of $5,764.67, allocating one‑fifteenth ($384.31) to each appellant.
Court Disposition
Respondent's bill of costs allowed in full
Orders
- Assessment allowed in the amount of $5,764.67
- One‑fifteenth of the assessed amount, $384.31, is payable by each appellant (as apportioned)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Bell v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2008-02-08 Neutral citation 2008 FCA 51 File numbers A-527-98 Decision Content Date: 20080208 Docket: A-527-98 Citation: 2008 FCA 51 BETWEEN: HARRY BELL Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-528-98 ROBERT WALKUS SENIOR Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-529-98 PATRICK CHARLIE Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-551-98 CORRINE WALKUS Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-552-98 BRIAN WALKUS Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-553-98 DOREEN WALKUS Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-554-98 ROBERT CHARLIE Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-555-98 JOHNSON BELL Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-556-98 ALVIN WALKUS Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-557-98 RAYMOND E. CLAIR Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-558-98 JOYE WALKUS Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-559-98 HENRY WALKUS Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-560-98 LLOYD WALKUS Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-561-98 JAMES WALKUS Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Docket: A-562-98 CHANTAL CHARLIE Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal and several others, listed in the style of cause above, were consolidated and heard together. They addressed decisions of the Tax Court of Canada concerning income tax exemptions relative to status Indians and fishing activities and were dismissed with costs. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Respondent's bill of costs, prepared for recovery from the Appellants, Alvin Walkus, Henry Walkus, Lloyd Walkus and Patrick Charlie (the Appellants). The appellants other than the Appellants have either settled costs, are deceased or are in bankruptcy. The Respondent's materials indicate that one-fifteenth (1/15), i.e. $384.31, of the amount of the bill of costs is payable by each of the Appellants. [2] The Appellants 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 bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. The total amount claimed is generally arguable as reasonable within the limits of the award of costs and is allowed as presented at $5,764.67. "Charles E. Stinson" Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-527-98 STYLE OF CAUSE: HARRY BELL v. HMQ ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: February 8, 2008 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS: n/a FOR THE APPELLANTS (self-represented) Ms. Wendy Yoshida FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: n/a FOR THE APPELLANTS John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT