BETWEEN:
and
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
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.
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
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:
|
n/a
|
(self-represented)
|
|
Ms. Wendy Yoshida
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
n/a
|
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada |