Zeid v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
- Citation
- 2012 FC 491
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 26 April 2012
- Posture
- Statutory Appeal Under Proceeds of Crime (money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act / Assessment of Costs Following Dismissal; Written Assessment Without Personal Appearance
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 26 April 2012
- Posture
- Statutory Appeal Under Proceeds of Crime (money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act / Assessment of Costs Following Dismissal; Written Assessment Without Personal Appearance
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Because the plaintiff did not respond and the defendant's bill of costs was generally reasonable and within the authority of the judgment and the tariff, the assessment officer allowed the bill in full at $9,376.11.
Court disposition
Assessment officer allowed the defendant's bill of costs in full and awarded costs to the defendant in the amount of $9,376.11.
Orders
- Defendant awarded costs in the amount of $9,376.11.
- Assessment of the bill of costs concluded in writing without personal appearance.
02
Material facts
Parties
KHETAM THAIHER ZEID
Plaintiff Counsel: François ParadisMINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Defendant Counsel: Myles J. Kirvan; Sinclair & AssociatesAmounts and remedies
- Amount Awarded: CAD 9,376.11
03
Procedural history
Posture
Statutory Appeal Under Proceeds of Crime (money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act / Assessment of Costs Following Dismissal; Written Assessment Without Personal Appearance
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendant's bill of costs is reasonable and allowable under the tariff
- 02
Whether the assessment officer may act as an advocate for an unresponsive litigant
- 03
Whether any items in the bill fall outside the authority of the judgment or the tariff
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff did not file any materials in response to the defendant's bill of costs and made no submissions.
- Respondent
- The defendant submitted a bill of costs totaling $9,376.11, argued the items were reasonable and within the authority of the judgment and the tariff, and sought assessment in that amount.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Federal Courts Rules
Assessment officers must remain neutral and cannot assume the role of an advocate for a party who fails to file submissions
- 02
Federal Courts Rules; Tariff of Costs
An assessment officer cannot certify items that are unlawful or outside the authority of the judgment and the tariff
- 03
Tariff of Costs (Federal Courts)
Costs are assessed on the basis of reasonableness in relation to the judgment and applicable tariff
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Because the plaintiff did not respond and the defendant's bill of costs was generally reasonable and within the authority of the judgment and the tariff, the assessment officer allowed the bill in full at $9,376.11.
Obiter and limits
- Assessment officers commonly decline to act as advocate for an unresponsive litigant.
- Although some individual items might attract disagreement, the aggregate amount was generally arguable as reasonable.
Court disposition
Assessment officer allowed the defendant's bill of costs in full and awarded costs to the defendant in the amount of $9,376.11.
- Defendant awarded costs in the amount of $9,376.11.
- Assessment of the bill of costs concluded in writing without personal appearance.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 26 April 2012
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 26 April 2012
Zeid v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2012-04-26 Neutral citation 2012 FC 491 File numbers T-1101-06 Decision Content Date: 20120426 Docket: T-1101-06 Citation: 2012 FC 491 BETWEEN:
KHETAM THAIHER ZEID Plaintiff and
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Defendant ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS Charles E. Stinson Assessment Officer [1] The Court dismissed with costs this statutory appeal by way of action further to section 30 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, SC 2000, c 17. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the bill of costs of the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not file any materials in response to the Defendant’s materials. [2] The Applicant 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. [3] Although there were items in the bill of costs of the Defendant which might have attracted disagreement, its total amount is generally arguable as reasonable and is allowed as presented at $9,376.11. “Charles E. Stinson” Assessment Officer Vancouver, BC April 26, 2012
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1101-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: KHETAM THAIHER ZEID v MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON DATED: April 26, 2012 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: n/a
FOR THE PLAINTIFF François Paradis
FOR THE DEFENDANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Sinclair & Associates Winnipeg, MB
FOR THE PLAINTIFF Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, BC
FOR THE DEFENDANT
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.