Date: 20120326
Docket: A-146-10
Citation:
2012 FCA 102
BEFORE: JOHANNE PARENT, Assessment
Officer
BETWEEN:
CONSEIL
DES INNUS DE PESSAMIT
Applicant
and
ASSOCIATION
DES POLICIERS ET POLICIÈRES DE PESSAMIT
Respondent
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF QUEBEC
Intervener
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT
JOHANNE PARENT, Assessment Officer
[1]
On November 12,
2010, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review from a decision
of the Canada Industrial Relations Board dated March 4, 2010, with costs. On
December 1, 2011, the Attorney General of Quebec filed his bill of costs
with the Court. Directions were issued and served on December 7, 2011,
informing the parties that the costs would be assessed in writing and setting
the deadlines for filing submissions.
[2]
In support of his bill
of costs, the Attorney General of Quebec (AGC) filed the affidavit of Francis
Demers sworn October 26, 2011, with supporting exhibits. Counsel for the
applicant submitted within the statutory time limits written submissions
against the bill of costs. The Registry received no submissions from the
respondent.
[3]
According to the
affidavit submitted on behalf of the AGQ, all the facts alleged in the bill of
costs and the supporting materials are true.
[4]
In reply, counsel for
the applicant submits the following:
[translation]
The
assessment officer cannot assess a bill of costs filed by the Attorney General
of Quebec in this matter because of the definition of “party” at
subparagraph (a)(iii) of the Rules. This was the type of
application referred to in subparagraph (iii) and not a reference.
The
AGQ is not the respondent but a party with a right to be heard in respect of
constitutional questions (subsection 57(4) of the Federal Courts Act).
The
AGQ had applied to the Federal Court for respondent status, but the application
was denied by Justice Nadon on August 18, 2010.
Consequently,
the assessment officer does not have jurisdiction to assess the AGQ’s bill of
costs under sections 400, 405 and 406 of the Rules (“Awarding of Costs
between Parties) and the definition of “party” in the Rules.
This
is a question of jurisdiction ratione materiae and of public interest
that the assessment officer must raise of her own initiative. An assessment of
this bill would be ultra vires and an excess of jurisdiction.
[5]
Under
subsection 400(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, the Court has “full
discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs and the
determination of by whom they are to be paid”. Generally speaking, unless the
decision specifies otherwise, the costs between parties, when determined, are
awarded to the successful party. In the case at bar, the Court found in favour
of the respondent. However, the Court did not indicate to whom, the respondent
or the Attorney General of Quebec, the costs were payable, notwithstanding the
fact that the respondent had not filed any submissions with the Court or even
appeared at the hearing, while the AGQ had filed a record and appeared at the
hearing.
[6]
The definition of the
word “party” at section 2 of the Federal Courts Rules reads as
follows:
|
“party” means
(a) in respect of an action, a plaintiff, defendant or
third party;
(b) in respect of an application,
(i) where a tribunal brings a reference under section 18.3 of
the Act, a person who becomes a party in accordance with rule 323,
(ii) where the Attorney General of Canada brings a reference
under section 18.3 of the Act, the Attorney General of Canada and any other
person who becomes a party in accordance with rule 323, and
(iii) in any other case, an applicant or respondent;
(c) in respect of an appeal, an appellant or
respondent; and
(d) in respect of a motion, the person bringing the
motion or a respondent thereto.
|
« parties »
a) Dans une action, le demandeur, le défendeur et la tierce
partie;
b) dans une demande :
(i) dans le cas d’un renvoi fait par un office fédéral en
vertu de l’article 18.3 de la Loi, toute personne qui devient partie au
renvoi aux termes de la règle 323,
(ii) dans le cas d’un renvoi fait par le procureur général du
Canada en vertu de l’article 18.3 de la Loi, le demandeur et toute personne
qui devient partie au renvoi aux termes de la règle 323,
(iii) dans tout autre cas, le demandeur et le défendeur;
c) dans un appel, l’appelant et l’intimé;
d) dans une requête, le requérant et l’intimé.
|
[7]
In addition to
section 2, which defines the word “party”, section 104 of the Federal
Courts Rules, 1998 explains the manner in which a person may be joined as a
party.
|
104. (1) At
any time, the Court may
(a) order that a person who
is not a proper or necessary party shall cease to be a party; or
(b) order that a person who
ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is
necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the proceeding may be effectually
and completely determined be added as a party, but no person shall be added
as a plaintiff or applicant without his or her consent, signified in writing
or in such other manner as the Court may order.
(2) An order made under subsection
(1) shall contain directions as to amendment of the originating document and
any other pleadings.
|
104. (1) La
Cour peut, à tout moment, ordonner :
a) qu’une personne constituée
erronément comme partie ou une partie dont la présence n’est pas nécessaire
au règlement des questions en litige soit mise hors de cause;
b) que soit constituée comme partie
à l’instance toute personne qui aurait dû l’être ou dont la présence devant
la Cour est nécessaire pour assurer une instruction complète et le règlement
des questions en litige dans l’instance; toutefois, nul ne peut être
constitué codemandeur sans son consentement, lequel est notifié par écrit ou
de telle autre manière que la Cour ordonne.
(2) L’ordonnance rendue en vertu du
paragraphe (1) contient des directives quant aux modifications à apporter à l’acte
introductif d’instance et aux autres actes de procédure.
|
[8]
In addition to defining
the word “party”, the Federal Courts Rules, 1998 specifically describe
the manner in which a person can be joined as a party, distinguishing this
process from the manner in which the Court may grant leave to any person to
intervene. In the case at bar, the Court in its decision dated August 18,
2010, relying on section 57 of the Federal Courts Act, dismissed
the AGQ’s application to be joined as a respondent. However, in its decision
dated November 12, 2010, the Court wrote at paragraph 3 that “[o]nly
the Attorney General of Quebec . . . intervened and filed a record. At the
hearing, the Court ordered that the Attorney General of Quebec be named as
intervener in the style of cause”.
[9]
Section 109 of the
Federal Courts Rules describes the manner in which a person may
intervene in a proceeding.
|
109. (1) The
Court may, on motion, grant leave to any person to intervene in a proceeding.
(2) Notice of a motion under
subsection (1) shall
(a) set out the full name and
address of the proposed intervener and of any solicitor acting for the
proposed intervener; and
(b) describe how the proposed
intervener wishes to participate in the proceeding and how that participation
will assist the determination of a factual or legal issue related to the
proceeding.
(3) In granting a motion under
subsection (1), the Court shall give directions regarding
(a) the service of documents;
and
(b) the role of the intervener,
including costs, rights of appeal and any other matters relating to the
procedure to be followed by the intervener.
|
109. (1) La
Cour peut, sur requête, autoriser toute personne à intervenir dans une
instance.
(2) L’avis d’une requête présentée
pour obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir :
a) précise les nom et adresse de la
personne qui désire intervenir et ceux de son avocat, le cas échéant;
b) explique de quelle manière la
personne désire participer à l’instance et en quoi sa participation aidera à
la prise d’une décision sur toute question de fait et de droit se rapportant
à l’instance.
(3) La Cour assortit l’autorisation
d’intervenir de directives concernant :
a) la signification de documents;
b) le rôle de l’intervenant,
notamment en ce qui concerne les dépens, les droits d’appel et toute autre
question relative à la procédure à suivre.
|
[10]
According to the Court’s
decision dated August 18, 2010, the AGQ was therefore not considered to be
a party in the proceeding, and, in its decision dated November 12, 2010,
the AGQ was granted leave to intervene. However, in this last decision, I cannot
find any directions, as required by paragraph 109(3)(b), regarding “. . .
the role of the intervener, including costs . . .” (emphasis
added).
[11]
Seeking to establish the Court’s intention as to
costs in the present matter, I, like my colleague at paragraph 115 of Halford
v. Seed Hawk Inc., 2006 FC 422, reviewed the reasons for the decision dated
November 12, 2010. I was, however, unable to find a clear indication there
allowing me to conclude that the costs awarded by the Court concerned the AGQ.
[12]
Lastly, I performed a
cursory review of past Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court decisions
examining cases where interveners were involved and where, in the decisions
resulting from these cases, the court in question had dealt with costs. On the
basis of the decisions identified through this review, I conclude that the
costs concerning interveners are usually clearly indicated by the court: Jazz
Air LP v. Toronto Port Authority, 2007 FC 976; Quigley v. Canada,
2003 FCJ No 368; Humber Environmental Action Group v. Canada,
[2002] FCJ No 529 (FC) and [2002] FCJ No 1041 (AO); and Abbott v.
Canada [2001] 3 FC 342 (FC) and 2004 FC 739 (AO).
[13]
In light of all of the above, it is my opinion
that I do not have the necessary jurisdiction to assess the Attorney General of
Quebec’s bill of costs. In that respect, the following certificate will be
issued:
UPON
the applicant’s objection to the assessment of the intervener’s bill of costs on
the grounds that the assessment officer does not have the necessary
jurisdiction to assess the costs between the applicant and the intervener since
the Attorney General of Quebec is not a party to the proceeding within the
meaning of the Federal Courts Rules;
AFTER
CONSIDERING the submissions of the solicitors of record;
I
CERTIFY that I do not have the necessary jurisdiction to assess the Attorney
General of Quebec’s bill of costs in this matter.
“Johanne Parent”
Certified true translation
Johanna Kratz, Translator
Email this Content