Experimental feature warning
The hosting of judicial decisions on Tax Interpretations is in Beta. We do not guarantee the accuracy of this text.
The text-formatting is also in development. The final version will be more polished than what you see here.
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 98
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
CANADIAN PACIFIC LIMITED
REASONS FOR ORDER
 As I understand it, the respondent in this appeal brings this motion, filed on February 5, 2002, requesting that the Court reconsider its judgment issued on December 21, 2001, dismissing the appeal with costs. Specifically, it wants not only costs in that appeal but, as it requested in its memorandum of fact and law in the appeal
its costs throughout, including its costs for all prior steps in these proceedings including the hearings before the Tax Court of Canada and the appeals before this Court and the Supreme Court of Canada.
In our judgment we dismissed the appeal "with costs".
 The respondent now appears to want the Court to reconsider its judgment of December 21, 2001. The motion purports to be brought under Rule 403 for "directions" that the costs awarded are to include costs in other courts and other proceedings. But what is now being sought is an award of costs which was not made by the Court in its judgment. That is not permitted under Rule 403. Instead, the judgment would have to be rewritten. The only basis upon which this could be done would be Rule 397(1), where it must be shown that either the order does not accord with the reasons or that some matter which should have been dealt with has been overlooked. The present motion establishes neither criteria. There is nothing in the judgment inconsistent with the reasons. Nor is there any basis for saying some matter was overlooked. The Court had before it the respondent's memorandum of fact and law with the special request for costs. It considered that and simply ordered dismissal "with costs" without any exceptional terms. While the respondent now says counsel for the appellant had agreed to a wider award, as far as I can determine from my notes and from the Court record that agreement was never brought to the attention of the Court. Thus it was not "overlooked".
 In any event a motion under Rule 397 must be brought within 10 days of the order. Even allowing for the Christmas recess this motion was brought 4 weeks after the time began to run and over 6 weeks after the judgment was actually issued.
 The motion will therefore be dismissed.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-701-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Her Majesty the Queen v. Canadian Pacific Ltd.
MOTIONS DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER
BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Strayer
DATED: March 12. 2002
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Michael E. Barrack FOR THE RESPONDENT Gabrielle M. R. Richards
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE APPELLANT Deputy Attorney General of Canada
McCarthy Tétrault LLP FOR THE RESPONDENT Toronto, Ontario
Harry Erlichman FOR THE APPELLANT Jenna Clark