Costigane v. Canada (Attorney General)
The application was dismissed because the Court found no legal or factual errors requiring intervention and held that agents cannot recover fees indirectly under Rule 12(3) where Rule 11 limits recoverable fees to counsel.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2002 FCA 327
- Parties
- Applicant: Thomas Costigane; Respondent: Deputy Attorney General of Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 September 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Dismissed by Federal Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for judicial review dismissed without costs.
- Legal Topics
- Tax Court of Canada Rules, Informal Procedure, Representation by Agent, Disbursements and Counsel Fees, Judicial Review Standard of Review
- 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
Thomas Costigane
Applicant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Dismissed by Federal Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tax Court decision contained legal or factual errors warranting intervention
- 2 Whether agents may claim disbursements under Rule 12(3) contrary to Rule 11
- 3 Whether precedent in Her Majesty the Queen v. Linda Munro required dismissal
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the Court found no legal or factual errors requiring intervention and held that agents cannot recover fees indirectly under Rule 12(3) where Rule 11 limits recoverable fees to counsel.
Court Disposition
Application for judicial review dismissed without costs.
Orders
- Application for judicial review dismissed
- No costs awarded
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Costigane v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-09-11 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 327 File numbers A-470-01 Decision Content Date: 20020912 Docket: A-470-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 327 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: THOMAS COSTIGANE Applicant - and - DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, September 11, 2002. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, September 11 , 2002. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: MALONE J.A. Date: 20020912 Docket: A-470-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 327 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: THOMAS COSTIGANE Applicant - and - DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, September 11, 2002) MALONE J.A. [1] Following the decision of this Court in Her Majesty the Queen v. Linda Munro, 98 D.T.C. 6443 and based on the reasons articulated by Tax Court Judge R.D. Bell in his judgment of March 16, 2001, we are satisfied that this application for judicial review should be dismissed without costs. [2] From the record below, we can find no legal or factual errors that require the intervention of this Court. [3] While the Informal Procedure set out in the Tax Court of Canada Rules contemplates representation by an agent, agents should not be allowed to claim indirectly under Rule 12(3) under the words "such other disbursements," what is clearly denied to them under Rule 11 which restricts allowable fees to the services of counsel. "B. Malone" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: A-470-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: THOMAS COSTIGANE Applicant - and - DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: MALONE J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2002. DATED: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Thomas Costigane For the Applicant, on his own behalf Ms. Sointula Kirkpatrick For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD:Thomas Costigane 35 Harvard Road Guelph, Ontario N1G 3A2 For the Applicant, on his own behalf Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Date: 20020912 Docket: A-470-01 BETWEEN: THOMAS COSTIGANE Applicant - and - DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT