PRACTICE |
Costs |
Richards v. M.N.R.
T-636-02
2004 FC 1663, Pilon A.O.
26/11/04
4 pp.
Order dismissing application for judicial review not mentioning costs--Respondent requesting assessment of costs pursuant to Privacy Act, s. 52(1)--Under s. 52(1), "costs of and incidental to all proceedings in the Court under this Act shall be in the discretion of the Court and shall follow the event unless the Court orders otherwise"--Solicitor for respondent emphasizing: "costs . . . shall follow the event unless the Court orders otherwise"--Applicants' argument stressing words "costs . . . shall be in the discretion of the Court"--Assessment officers cannot substitute authority to grant costs for that of Court notwithstanding provisions of Privacy Act, s. 52(1)--Expression "costs . . . shall be in the discretion of the Court" in context of Act implying clear, visible exercise of judge's discretion--Phrase "costs . . . shall follow the event unless the Court orders otherwise" empowering judges to grant costs to any party--Provisions of s. 52(1) forming logical, coherent codification of allocation of costs under Act--Principle of presumption of coherence applied--Furthermore, use of conjunction "and" usually serving to join, unite, combine--Having unifying effect rather than divisive one--Request denied--Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, s. 52(1).