Biderman v. The Queen, 2000 DTC 6149, 2001 FCA 269 (FCA)

By services, 28 November, 2015
Is tax content
Tax Content (confirmed)
Citation
Citation name
2000 DTC 6149
Citation name
2001 FCA 269
Decision date
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
355666
Extra import data
{
"field_court_parentheses": "FCA",
"field_external_guid": [
"url::decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/33304/index"
],
"field_full_style_of_cause": "",
"field_import_body_hash": "7665e06af5a7dda937763b17613958678549464fef495da6891a983d0283ef23",
"field_informal_procedure": false,
"field_year_parentheses": "",
"field_source_url": {
"url": "https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/33304/index.do",
"title": "",
"attributes": [],
"original_title": "",
"original_url": "https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/33304/index.do"
}
}
Workflow properties
Workflow state
Workflow changed
Style of cause
Biderman v. The Queen
Main text

Date: 20010914

Docket: A-535-98

Neutral Citation: 2001 FCA 269

BETWEEN:

JUSTIN BIDERMAN

Appellant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Docket: A-536-98

BETWEEN:

TODD BIDERMAN

Appellant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Docket: A-537-98

BETWEEN:

MATTHEW BIDERMAN

Appellant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent


ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1] By Judgment rendered in each of the above matters, the Court dismissed the appeal against a decision of the Tax Court of Canada. The Respondent presented a single bill of costs addressing all three matters and seeking only one set of costs as the appeals were heard together. The Appellants did not respond to notice of the timetable issued for written disposition of this bill of costs. The Federal Court Rules, 1998 do not contemplate a litigant, having proper notice of an assessment of costs and choosing not to participate, as was the case here, benefiting by an assessment officer abdicating 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 Respondent's bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. In the circumstances of this litigation, the amount claimed for costs is within the limits of the Tariff.

[2] The Respondent's Bill of Costs, presented at $3,174.50, is assessed and allowed at $3,174.50.

(Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"

Assessment Officer


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

Docket: A-535-98

BETWEEN:

JUSTIN BIDERMAN

Appellant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Docket: A-536-98

BETWEEN:

TODD BIDERMAN

Appellant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Docket: A-537-98

BETWEEN:

MATTHEW BIDERMAN

Appellant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent


- 2 -

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING

WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

REASONS BY: CHARLES E. STINSON

DATED: September 14, 2001

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Wilson, Walker, Hochberg, Slopen

Windsor, Ontario for the Appellants

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the Respondents

Docket
A-535-98