Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

PRACTICE

                                                                                                  Costs

Appellant had sought judicial review of refusal to designate donated property pursuant to Cultural Property Export and Import Act, s. 32(2)—Court made interlocutory ruling deponents of affidavits filed by Minister need not answer certain questions upon cross‑examination due to solicitor‑ client privilege—Appeal against ruling dismissed with costs— Appellant argues, absent extraordinary circumstances, costs awarded in respect of interlocutory proceedings not assessed until action concluded so premature to now assess these costs—Respondent’s submission that appeal to Federal Court of Appeal (F.C.A.) separate from Federal Court (F.C.) judicial review and F.C.A. judgment final, so those costs immediately assessable—Further argued judge hearing judicial review lacking jurisdiction as to F.C.A. costs award—At time of F.C.A. judgment, substantive issues of judicial review remained outstanding so F.C.A. judgment was, in broadest sense, interlocutory as not determinative of judicial review—Authorities referred to by appellant stand for sensible proposition single costs assessment should occur in given proceeding, including any interlocutory costs award—Still, doubtful F.C.A. final judgment disposing of appeal from F.C. interlocutory ruling falling within appellant’s authorities —F.C.A., considering hierarchy of courts, is beyond, outside bounds of any trial court proceeding— According to notion of “substantive right” in hierarchy of courts, F.C. interlocutory costs award is proceeding within, incidental to main proceeding, but F.C.A. costs award is not proceeding within main proceeding, notwithstanding its effect, in broadest sense, incidental to outcome of judicial review—Minister may proceed with costs assessment—Bill of costs for fees, disbursements modest, should be allowed as presented— Cultural Property Export and Import Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑51, s. 32(2) (as am. by S.C. 1991, c. 49, s. 218).

Williamson v. Canada (Attorney General) (A‑322‑04, 2005 FCA 219, Stinson A.O., assessment dated 8/6/05, 6 pp.)

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.