Marathon Electric Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)
Because the Appellant failed to respond and the assessment officer must remain neutral while refusing to certify any items outside the judgment or tariff, the officer examined the items within those parameters and determined the amended bill was generally arguable and permissible; accordingly the Respondent's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2006 FCA 287
- Parties
- Appellant/applicant: Marathon Electric Ltd.; Respondent: Minister of National Revenue
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 August 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Tax Appeal / Assessment of Costs (post Judgment)
- Outcome
- Respondent's amended bill of costs assessed and allowed as presented.
- Legal Topics
- Insurability of Employment, Costs Assessment, Federal Courts Rules, Tariff
- 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
Marathon Electric Ltd.
Appellant/applicant
Minister of National Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / Assessment of Costs (post Judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the assessment officer may act as advocate for a litigant when items in a bill of costs are contested
- 2 Whether items in the bill of costs were lawful and within the authority of the judgment and the tariff
- 3 Whether the total claimed costs were reasonable in the circumstances
Ratio Decidendi
Because the Appellant failed to respond and the assessment officer must remain neutral while refusing to certify any items outside the judgment or tariff, the officer examined the items within those parameters and determined the amended bill was generally arguable and permissible; accordingly the Respondent's amended bill of costs was allowed in full at $3,881.46.
Court Disposition
Respondent's amended bill of costs assessed and allowed as presented.
Orders
- Respondent awarded costs in the amount of $3,881.46; assessment allowed as presented
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Marathon Electric Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-08-29 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 287 File numbers A-28-04 Decision Content Date: 20060829 Docket: A-28-04 Citation: 2006 FCA 287 BETWEEN: MARATHON ELECTRIC LTD. Appellant/Applicant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] This appeal, addressing a decision of the Tax Court of Canada concerning insurability of employment, 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 amended 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 amended bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $3,881.46. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-28-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: MARATHON ELECTRIC LTD. - and – MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE 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/APPLICANT Kristy Foreman Gear FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Kahn Zack Ehrlich Lithwick Richmond, BC FOR THE APPELLANT Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT