Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant challenged the validity of a prior judgment, claiming the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction.

• The assessment officer determined the prior judgment was effective and enforceable under Federal Courts Rules.

• Costs were assessed under Tariff B, with no evidence accepted to contradict service or time claims.

• Respondent’s claims for legal services were largely upheld, with only minor adjustments.

• One courier fee was disallowed due to conflicting evidence on method of service.

• Appellant’s public interest and jurisdictional objections were rejected as outside the assessment officer’s authority.

Facts and outcome of the case

Ehtesham A. Rafique, acting on his own behalf, filed an appeal against the Minister of National Revenue. The appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal in February 2024, with costs awarded to the Minister. Following this, the Minister requested an assessment of costs as provided under Rule 406 of the Federal Courts Rules. Mr. Rafique objected, arguing that the original court lacked jurisdiction and that the judgment was therefore void. He also disputed the legal fees and disbursements claimed by the Minister.

The assessment officer, Karine Turgeon, found that the original judgment was legally valid and enforceable under subsection 392(2) of the Rules. The officer emphasized that her role did not include reviewing or overturning court decisions. She could only assess costs in line with the judgment and applicable legal framework.

The Respondent’s Bill of Costs was submitted under Column III of Tariff B, and most of the claimed items were allowed. The assessment officer evaluated whether the number of units claimed for legal services corresponded to the complexity and amount of work involved. Mr. Rafique provided general objections but failed to engage with individual claims in detail. As a result, claims not specifically challenged were presumed reasonable if compliant with the Rules.

In total, 16.5 units were awarded for legal services, amounting to $2,805. Additionally, $288.56 in disbursements was approved, which included photocopying and a partial allowance for courier services. One courier charge of $25.33 was disallowed due to a discrepancy in how the service was claimed and documented. No damages were sought or awarded in this proceeding, as it concerned cost recovery only.

The final outcome was a Certificate of Assessment issued in favor of the Minister of National Revenue for $3,093.56, payable by Mr. Rafique.