PRACTICE |
Costs |
Richards v. M.N.R.
T-636-02
2005 FC 24, Harrington J.
12/1/05
5 pp.
Judicial review of Assessment Officer's refusal to award Minister costs although successfully defended judicial review application challenging denial of access to information under Privacy Act--Federal Court dismissing applicants' Privacy Act, s. 41 application without mentioning costs in decision-- Minister bringing bill of costs for taxation on basis of Privacy Act, s. 52--S. 52 providing costs to follow event unless Court determining otherwise or judicial review application raising important new principle in relation to Act--Application not raising important new principle--Under Federal Courts Rules, s. 414, Court should only interfere with Assessment Officer's decision if obvious error in principle or if amount assessed so unreasonable error in principle must be inferred as underlying cause--Assessment Officer erring and bill of costs sent back for taxation--Since no order made concerning costs, Federal Court's order deemed to have included order for costs--Basic principle is Court having full discretion in awarding of costs, determining party to make payment thereof (s. 400 of the Rules)--If no order as to costs, party may request directions under s. 403 of the Rules--Privacy Act, s. 52 default provision regarding costs, must be taken at face value-- Motion allowed--Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-1, ss. 41, 52 --Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, ss. 1 (as am. by SOR/2004-283, s. 2), 400 (as am. by SOR/2002-417, s. 25(F)), 403, 414 (as am. by SOR/2004-283, s. 33).