Date: 20031027
Docket: T-861-03
Citation: 2003 FC 1249
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Plaintiff
- and -
RICHARD STADNICK
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GAUTHIER J:
[1] The plaintiff has taken action against the defendant for failure to repay funds advanced through the administration of the Canadian Wheat Board on behalf of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, R.S.C. 1997, c.20. The record shows that the defendant was duly served but failed to file a statement of defence or take other steps in the proceedings within the delays.
[2] The plaintiff has now moved ex parte and in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, for judgment. When this first matter came before me I noted that copy of the application said to have been signed by the defendant and referred to in the statement of claim was not produced, that there was no evidence that the principal amount had been effectively advanced to the defendant and if so on what date, and that there was no evidence that the plaintiff had demanded repayment as alleged. On September 23, 2003 I directed that material be filed in respect thereto.
[3] In response, the plaintiff produced the affidavit of Carrie Kiehn, sworn October 2, 2003 to which were appended various records of the Canadian Wheat Board. She stated, however, that the application of the defendant in writing had been misplaced.
[4] The records also indicate that a demand for repayment had been mailed to the defendant.
[5] I am satisfied that the Canadian Wheat Board advanced the sum of $60,750 to the defendant on September 11, 1998. According to the Schedule A of the statement of claim the defendant repaid nothing prior to his default on August 23, 1999. Thereafter he repaid $1000 on July 30, 2001. However, according to the first affidavit of Ms. Kiehn, sworn August 28, 2003, and filed in support of the application for default judgment, the defendant is credited with payments or refunds subsequent to the date of his default in the amount of $2000. The date of this second $1000 is not stated. For ease of calculation I shall consider it to have been repaid or refunded on July 30, 2001.
[6] I am satisfied that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the principal amount of $58,750.
[7] The problem I have is with the interest component of the claim. Interest is claimed, calculated daily, and compounded monthly on the outstanding balance at 5 per cent above the prime lending rate.
[8] Since Mr. Stadnick has not filed a defence, he is taken to have denied the allegations in the statement of claim pertaining to interest. This point was dealt with by Hugessen J. in Chase Manhattan Corp. v. 3133559 Canada Inc. 2001 FCT 895.
[9] The plaintiff was given an opportunity to produce the agreement it alleges it had with Mr. Stadnick but it is unable to do so. I am unable to conclude that the defendant agreed to pay interest at prime plus 5 per cent. Section 3 of the Interest Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. I-15, provides:
|
3. Whenever any interest is payable by the agreement of parties or by law, and no rate is fixed by the agreement or by law, the rate of interest shall be five per cent per annum.
|
3. Chaque fois que de l'intérêt est exigible par convention entre les parties ou en vertu de la loi, et qu'il n'est pas fixé de taux en vertu de cette convention ou par la loi, le taux de l'intérêt est de cinq pour cent par an.
|
[10] The Agricultural Marketing Programs Act does not establish a rate of interest. Section 22 calls for payment of interest "at the rate specified in the repayment agreement", the agreement the plaintiff is unable to produce.
[11] I have also taken into account sections 36(1) and (2) and 37 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985 c.F-7, which provide:
|
36. (1) Except as otherwise provided in any other Act of Parliament, and subject to subsection (2), the laws relating to prejudgment interest in proceedings between subject and subject that are in force in a province apply to any proceedings in the Court in respect of any cause of action arising in that province.
|
36. (1) Sauf disposition contraire de toute autre loi fédérale, et sous réserve du paragraphe (2), les règles de droit en matière d'intérêt avant jugement qui, dans une province, régissent les rapports entre particuliers s'appliquent à toute instance devant la Cour et don't le fait générateur est survenu dans cette province.
|
|
(2) A person who is entitled to an order for the payment of money in respect of a cause of action arising outside any province or in respect of causes of action arising in more than one province is entitled to claim and have included in the order an award of interest thereon at such rate as the Court considers reasonable in the circumstances, calculated
(a) where the order is made on a liquidated claim, from the date or dates the cause of action or causes of action arose to the date of the order; or
(b) where the order is made on an unliquidated claim, from the date the person entitled gave notice in writing of the claim to the person liable therefor to the date of the order.
|
(2) Dans toute instance devant la Cour et don't le fait générateur n'est pas survenu dans une province ou don't les faits générateurs sont survenus dans plusieurs provinces, les intérêts avant jugement sont calculés au taux que la Cour estime raisonnable dans les circonstances et_:
a) s'il s'agit d'une créance d'une somme déterminée, depuis la ou les dates du ou des faits générateurs jusqu'à la date de l'ordonnance de paiement;
b) si la somme n'est pas déterminée, depuis la date à laquelle le créancier a avisé par écrit le débiteur de sa demande jusqu'à la date de l'ordonnance de paiement.
|
|
37. (1) Except as otherwise provided in any other Act of Parliament and subject to subsection (2), the laws relating to interest on judgments in causes of action between subject and subject that are in force in a province apply to judgments of the Court in respect of any cause of action arising in that province.
|
37. (1) Sauf disposition contraire de toute autre loi fédérale et sous réserve du paragraphe (2), les règles de droit en matière d'intérêt pour les jugements qui, dans une province, régissent les rapports entre particuliers s'appliquent à toute instance devant la Cour et don't le fait générateur est survenu dans cette province.
|
|
(2) A judgment of the Court in respect of a cause of action arising outside any province or in respect of causes of action arising in more than one province shall bear interest at such rate as the Court considers reasonable in the circumstances, calculated from the time of the giving of the judgment.
|
(2) Dans le cas où le fait générateur n'est pas survenu dans une province ou dans celui où les faits générateurs sont survenus dans plusieurs provinces, le jugement de la Cour porte intérêt, à compter de son prononcé, au taux que celle-ci estime raisonnable dans les circonstances.
|
[12] Given that the alleged application emanated from Alberta and was sent to Saskatchewan, I am of the view that the cause of action arose in more than one province. See [1981] 1 S.C.R. 598">Wabasso Ltd. v. National Drawing Machinery Co., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 598 and Air Canada v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1554.
[13] I should note that if I were of the view that the cause of action arose in Alberta the difference in pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act, R.S.A. 2000 c. J-1 and the Judgment Interest Regulations, A.R. 364-84, would be insignificant.
[14] In the circumstances, I consider it reasonable that prejudgment interest be calculated at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the sum of $60,750 from September 11, 1998 to July 30, 2001 and on the sum of $58,750 from July 31, 2001.
[15] Judgment is thus granted against the defendant in the amount of $74,104.51 with post-judgment interest thereon running at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from October 27, 2003.
[16] The plaintiff shall have its costs in the lump sum of $ 650.00.
"Johanne Gauthier"
JUDGE
Ottawa, Ontario
October 27, 2003
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-861-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
- and -
RICHARD STADNICK
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES ON AN EX PARTE BASIS
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: GAUTHIER J.
DATED: OCTOBER 27, 2003
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
Mr. Marlon Miller
|
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
|
|
|
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Morris Rosenberg,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
|
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
|
|
|
|
Email this Content