Date:
20050617
Docket:
A-117-04
Citation:
2005 FCA 238
Present: DESJARDINS J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ
LE CORRE
Appellant
and
THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT
OF CANADA
Respondents
Motion
in writing decided without appearance of the parties.
Order
delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, June 17, 2005.
REASONS FOR ORDER: DESJARDINS
J.A.
CONCURRING: NADON
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
Date:
20050617
Docket:
A-117-04
Citation:
2005 FCA 238
Present: DESJARDINS J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ
LE CORRE
Appellant
and
THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT
OF CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
DESJARDINS J.A.
[1] The appellant moves under Rule
397(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, to have the Court set
aside the part of his judgment ordering him to pay costs and substitute
therefor the words “without costs”.
[2] The judgment of April 12, 2005
reads:
The appeal is
dismissed with costs.
The appellant
asks that it read instead:
The appeal is
dismissed without costs.
[3] The appellant relies on Rule
299.41. This is found in the title “Class Actions”, and reads in part:
|
CLASS
ACTIONS
|
RECOURS
COLLECTIFS
|
|
...
|
[...]
|
|
Costs
|
Dépens
|
|
No costs
|
Sans
dépens
|
|
299.41 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and
(3), no costs may be awarded to any party to a motion for certification of an
action as a class action, to a class action or to an appeal arising from a
class action at any stage of the motion, class action or appeal.
|
299.41 (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes
(2) et (3), aucuns dépens ne sont adjugés aux parties à une requête en
autorisation d’une action comme recours collectif, à un recours collectif ou
à un appel découlant d’un recours collectif, à quelque étape de l’instance
que ce soit.
|
|
|
|
|
Exception
|
Exception
|
|
(2) Costs may
be awarded against a party referred to in subsection (1) at any time if
|
(2) Les
dépens peuvent, à tout moment, être adjugés contre une partie visée au
paragraphe (1) dans les cas suivants :
|
|
(a)
the conduct of the party tended to unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the
proceeding;
|
a) sa conduite a eu pour effet de prolonger inutilement la durée de
l’instance;
|
|
(b)
any step in the proceeding by the party was improper, vexatious or unnecessary
or was taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution; or
|
b) une mesure prise par elle au cours de l’instance était
inappropriée, vexatoire ou inutile ou a été entreprise de manière négligente,
par erreur ou avec trop de circonspection;
|
|
(c) there are exceptional
circumstances that make it unjust to deprive the successful party of costs.
|
c) des
circonstances exceptionnelles font en sorte qu’il serait injuste d’en priver
la partie qui a eu gain de cause.
|
|
...
|
[...]
|
[4] The matter before us was an
appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Hugessen dismissing the appellant’s
motion for leave to exercise a class action. In their memorandum on the appeal,
the respondents asked for costs. There was every indication that this involved
the application of the general rule that the winning party is entitled to its
costs. The appellant, whose action, he says, was one of the first class actions
brought under the new class action rules of the Federal Court, did not object
and did not draw our attention to Rule 299.41.
[5] The Court’s power to reconsider
under rule 397(2) is limited to the situations described therein:
|
Mistakes
397.(2) Clerical mistakes, errors or
omissions in an order may at any time be corrected by the Court.
|
Erreurs
397.(2) Les
fautes de transcription, les erreurs et les omissions contenues dans les
ordonnances peuvent être corrigées à tout moment par la Cour.
|
[6] Rule 299.41 is new law, and the
Court as well could have drawn the parties’ attention to its content. I think
that, in this case, there was an “error in expressing the manifest intention of
the court” (Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2
S.C.R. 848, page 860, cited in Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc., 253 F.T.R.
122, at para. 9; Besse v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.) (1999),
250 N.R. 308). This warrants the application of the new rule, which constitutes
an exception to the general rule. There is no reason to apply the exception
contained in the second paragraph of this rule and to deprive the appellant of
the benefit of this rule, as the Attorney General of Canada argues.
[7] I would allow the motion and
strike the words “with costs” from the Court’s judgment dated April 12, 2005. I
would add the words “without costs”.
[8] The judgment of the Court dated
April 12, 2005 should now read:
The appeal is
dismissed without costs.
“Alice
Desjardins”
J.A.
“M. Nadon J.A.”
“J.D. Denis
Pelletier J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-117-04
STYLE: André Le Corre v. The
Attorney General of Canada and Department of Human Resources Development of
Canada
MOTION IN WRITING DECIDED WITHOUT
APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR
ORDER: Desjardins J.A.
CONCURRING: Nadon
J.A.
Pelletier J.A.
DATED: June 17, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Fredy Adams FOR
THE APPELLANT
Gilles Gareau
Frederic Paquin FOR
THE RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Adams, Gareau FOR
THE APPELLANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR
THE RESPONDENTS
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content