Supreme Court of Canada
Corpex (1977) Inc. v. The Queen in right of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 674
Date: 1983-05-17
Corpex (1977) Inc.
and
Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada
and
Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada Applicant on re-hearing;
and
Corpex (1977) Inc. Respondent on re-hearing.
File No.: 15996.
1983: May 2; 1983: May 17.
Present: Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.
MOTION FOR A RE-HEARING AND RE-HEARING
Practice—Motion for re-hearing—Re-hearing—Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/83-74, s. 51.
Crown—Payment of interest—Crown ordered to pay contractor with interest from date action was instituted—Re-hearing—Judgment varied—Interest payable from date of trial judgment—Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, ss. 35, 40—Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19 as amended, s.52.
R. v. Roger Miller & Sons Ltd., [1930] S.C.R. 293; Hochelaga Shipping & Towing Co. v. The King, [1944] S.C.R. 138; R. and Royal Bank of Canada v. Racette, [1948] S.C.R. 28; R. v. Carroll, [1948] S.C.R. 126, referred to.
MOTION FOR RE-HEARING AND RE-HEARING to vary a judgment rendered by this Court on November 23, 1982, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 643. Motion granted and judgment varied.
Jean-Marc Aubry, for the applicant on re-hearing.
Michel Fleury, for the respondent on re-hearing.
THE COURT—This is a re-hearing pursuant to Rule 51 of the Supreme Court of Canada. It seeks
[Page 675]
to vary a judgment handed down by this Court on November 23, 1982, which inter alia allowed respondent’s action against the applicant in the Federal Court in the amount of $138,486.65, “with interest at the legal rate from December 5, 1974”, the date the action was instituted.
(1) Whereas the applicant on re-hearing asks that this judgment be varied to make the interest run from November 20, 1978, the date of the trial judgment;
(2) Whereas s. 35 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, provides:
35. In adjudicating upon any claim againt the Crown, the Court shall not allow interest on any sum of money that the Court considers to be due to the claimant, in the absence of any contract stipulating for payment of such interest or of a statute providing in such a case for the payment of interest by the Crown;
(3) In view of R. v. Roger Miller & Sons Ltd., [1930] S.C.R. 293; Hochelaga Shipping & Towing Co. v. The King, [1944] S.C.R. 138; R. and Royal Bank of Canada v. Racette, [1948] S.C.R. 28; R. v. Carroll, [1948] S.C.R. 126;
(4) In view of the contract binding on the parties, which does not stipulate for the payment of interest by the Crown on monies owed, except for amounts payable under paragraph 4 of clause 4 of the “Terms of Payment”, a provision which does not apply here;
(5) In view of the following submission contained in the factum of applicant:
[TRANSLATION] 8. We admit, however, that in accordance with section 52 of the Supreme Court Act and section 40 of the Federal Court Act, the Crown may pay interest at the rate prescribed by section 3 of the Interest Act from the time the trial judgment was rendered on November 20, 1978;
(6) Whereas in the Federal Court of Appeal applicant raised the question now at issue, but refrained from doing so in the submission filed in this Court and at the hearing of the appeal;
[Page 676]
NOW THEREFORE it is ordered that the judgment rendered by this Court on November 23, 1982 be varied by substituting the words “with interest at the rate prescribed in s. 3 of the Interest Act from November 20, 1978, the date of the trial judgment” for the words “with interest at the legal rate from December 5, 1974”.
Applicant shall nevertheless pay the costs of the motion for a re-hearing and the re-hearing.
Motion granted and judgment varied.
Solicitor for the applicant on re-hearing: R. Tassé, Ottawa.
Solicitors for the respondent on re-hearing: Guy, Mercier, Bertrand, Bourgeois & Laurent, Montreal.
Email this Content