Date: 200500930
Docket: T-1716-01
Citation: 2005 FC 1346
Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 30th day of September, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE
BETWEEN:
SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND
MUSIC PUBLISHERS OF CANADA
Plaintiff
- and -
KICKS ROADHOUSE INC. c.o.b. HOW-DEE'S and
ANDREW CZARNOGORSKI
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O'KEEFE J.
[1] This is a motion by the defendant, Andrew Czarnogorski (the "defendant"), for an order extending the time for filing this motion and for a reconsideration of my order as to costs of the defendant or in the alternative, an order allowing submissions to the Court on costs.
[2] Request for an extension of time to file the within motion for reconsideration
As the defendant has provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and has evinced an intention to proceed with the motion, that portion of the defendant's motion in writing requesting an extension of time to file the motion for reconsideration is granted.
[3] Motion for reconsideration
The defendant's motion herein for reconsideration of the Court's judgment as it pertains to the issue of costs as between the plaintiff and the defendant, Andrew Czarnogorski, is premised upon the submission that the Court has overlooked or accidentally omitted to deal with a written offer to settle from the defendant. The written offer to settle is attached as Exhibit C to the affidavit of Andrew Czarnogorski filed in support of the defendant's motion.
[4] Rules 397, 400, 420 and 422 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106 state in part:
| 397. (1) Within 10 days after the making of an order, or within such other time as the Court may allow, a party may serve and file a notice of motion to request that the Court, as constituted at the time the order was made, reconsider its terms on the ground that
(a) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it; or
(b) a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted.
400. (1) The Court shall have full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs and the determination of by whom they are to be paid.
. . .
(3) In exercising its discretion under subsection (1), the Court may consider
. . .
(e) any written offer to settle;
. . .
420. (1) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, where a plaintiff makes a written offer to settle that is not revoked, and obtains a judgment as favourable or more favourable than the terms of the offer to settle, the plaintiff shall be entitled to party-and-party costs to the date of service of the offer and double such costs, excluding disbursements, after that date.
Consequences of failure to accept defendant's offer
(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, where a defendant makes a written offer to settle that is not revoked,
(a) if the plaintiff obtains a judgment less favourable than the terms of the offer to settle, the plaintiff shall be entitled to party-and-party costs to the date of service of the offer and the defendant shall be entitled to double such costs, excluding disbursements, from that date to the date of judgment; or
(b) if the plaintiff fails to obtain judgment, the defendant shall be entitled to party-and-party costs to the date of the service of the offer and to double such costs, excluding disbursements, from that date to the date of judgment.
422. No communication respecting an offer to settle or offer to contribute shall be made to the Court, other than to a case management judge or prothonotary assigned under rule 383(c) or to a judge or prothonotary at a pre-trial conference, until all questions of liability and the relief to be granted, other than costs, have been determined.
|
|
397. (1) Dans les 10 jours après qu'une ordonnance a été rendue ou dans tout autre délai accordé par la Cour, une partie peut signifier et déposer un avis de requête demandant à la Cour qui a rendu l'ordonnance, telle qu'elle était constituée à ce moment, d'en examiner de nouveau les termes, mais seulement pour l'une ou l'autre des raisons suivantes:
a) l'ordonnance ne concorde pas avec les motifs qui, le cas échéant, ont été donnés pour la justifier;
b) une question qui aurait dû être traitée a été oubliée ou omise involontairement.
400. (1) La Cour a le pouvoir discrétionnaire de déterminer le montant des dépens, de les répartir et de désigner les personnes qui doivent les payer.
. . .
(3) Dans l'exercice de son pouvoir discrétionnaire en application du paragraphe (1), la Cour peut tenir compte de l'un ou l'autre des facteurs suivants :
. . .
e) toute offre écrite de règlement;
. . .
420. (1) Sauf ordonnance contraire de la Cour, le demandeur qui présente par écrit une offre de règlement qui n'est pas révoquée et qui obtient un jugement aussi avantageux ou plus avantageux que les conditions de l'offre a droit aux dépens partie-partie jusqu'à la date de signification de l'offre et, par la suite, au double de ces dépens, à l'exclusion des débours.
Conséquences de la non-acceptation de l'offre du défendeur
(2) Sauf ordonnance contraire de la Cour, lorsque le défendeur présente par écrit une offre de règlement qui n'est pas révoquée et que le demandeur:
a) obtient un jugement moins avantageux que les conditions de l'offre, le demandeur a droit aux dépens partie-partie jusqu'à la date de signification de l'offre et le défendeur a droit au double de ces dépens, à l'exclusion des débours, à compter du lendemain de cette date jusqu'à la date du jugement;
b) n'obtient pas gain de cause lors du jugement, le défendeur a droit aux dépens partie-partie jusqu'à la date de signification de l'offre et au double de ces dépens, à l'exclusion des débours, à compter du lendemain de cette date jusqu'à la date du jugement.
422. Aucune communication concernant une offre de règlement ou une offre de contribution ne peut être faite à la Cour - sauf au juge chargé de la gestion de l'instance ou au protonotaire visé à l'alinéa 383c) ou sauf au juge ou au protonotaire lors de la conférence préparatoire à l'instruction - tant que les questions relatives à la responsabilité et à la réparation à accorder, sauf les dépens, n'ont pas été tranchées.
|
[5] Mr. Justice Gibson in Nordholm I/S v. Canada, [1996] F.C.J. No. 172, dealt with a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its determination on costs. In dismissing the motion, Gibson J. noted that the issue of costs was not addressed by either counsel during the course of the trial, and neither counsel indicated to the Court a wish to reconvene to consider the question of costs or a desire to submit written argument on the question of costs. Similarly in this case, during the course of the trial, neither party made submissions on costs, or advised the Court that the issue of costs should be dealt with separately from the issues of liability, or requested to make submissions on costs at a later date.
[6] The issue of any offers to settle goes to the awarding of costs. However, as the parties did not in any manner indicate to the Court that they wished to address the issues of costs either separately or at a later date, and without any such indication from counsel, I determined that in light of the divided success at trial, no costs were to be awarded. It cannot be said the Court overlooked any offers to settle. If I had instead determined that costs were payable, the offer to settle would then be relevant. Accordingly, the Court has not overlooked the offer to settle, and the provisions of Rule 397(1) are therefore not applicable in this instance.
[7] Similarly, as the defendant has not shown that the decision on costs did not accord with the reasons, I do not have jurisdiction under Rule 397(1)(a).
[8] I find that in this case, this defendant's motion for reconsideration is in essence a request for this Court to vary the judgment as it related to the issue of costs on the basis that an error has been made. For the reasons noted above, I do not have jurisdiction under Rule 397, or any other rule, to revisit the issue of costs. If the defendant's position is that an error has been made, that is properly the subject matter of an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, not a motion pursuant to Rule 397.
[9] The defendant's motion for reconsideration and the alternative request to make submissions on costs is therefore dismissed.
[10] As the plaintiff did not request costs on this motion, no costs are awarded.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion is dismissed.
"JOHN A. O'KEEFE"
Halifax, Nova Scotia
September 30, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1716-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND
MUSIC PUBLISHERS OF CANADA
- and -
KICKS ROADHOUSE INC. c.o.b. HOW-DEE'S and
ANDREW CZARNOGORSKI
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: O'KEEFE J.
DATED: September 30, 2005
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. A. Kelly Gill
Mr. Kevin Sartorio
FOR PLAINTIFF
Mr. Ray Di Gregorio
FOR DEFENDANTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR PLAINTIFF
Camporese & Associates
Hamilton, Ontario
FOR DEFENDANTS
Email this Content