SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Between:
Pacific National Investments Ltd.
Appellant
v.
Corporation of the City of Victoria
Respondent
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.
Order (motion for a re-hearing on the issue of post-judgment interest): (para. 1) |
The Court |
______________________________
Pacific National Investments Ltd. v. Victoria (City), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 286, 2005 SCC 17
Pacific National Investments Ltd. Appellant
v.
Corporation of the City of Victoria Respondent
Indexed as: Pacific National Investments Ltd. v. Victoria (City)
Neutral citation: 2005 SCC 17.
File No.: 29759.
2005: March 24.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.
motion for a re-hearing on the issue of post-judgment interest
Judgments and orders — Interest — Post-judgment interest — Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 50 .
The appellant developer successfully sued the respondent municipality for unjust enrichment and was awarded $1.08 million. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the developer’s action, but the Supreme Court restored the trial judgment with interest accruing on the sum of $1.08 million “at registrar’s rates from time to time commencing the 1st day of October 1993 [the date of the writ of summons] to the date of this judgment”. The order as to interest was in accordance with the order sought by the developer in its factum. Subsequently, the municipality refused to pay post‑judgment interest from the date of the trial judgment and the developer brought a motion for a re-hearing to clarify the judgment on that issue. In its response to the motion, the municipality argued that the developer did not seek, either in its factum or at the hearing, post-judgment interest from the date of the trial judgment. Rather, its original claim was for pre-judgment interest from the date of the writ of summons to the date of this Court’s judgment. The municipality submitted that this claim was appropriate because the Court of Appeal had overturned the trial judgment and the municipality was not liable to pay any judgment or interest until this Court’s decision. Lastly, although s. 50 of the Supreme Court Act states that, “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the Court”, interest is payable at the rate and from the date of the trial judgment, the municipality argued that, in this case, this Court specifically ordered otherwise.
Held: The motion for a re-hearing should be dismissed. Post-judgment interest should be paid from the date of the trial judgment.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Supreme Court Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 50 .
MOTION for a re-hearing on the issue of post-judgment interest following a judgment rendered by this Court, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 575. Motion dismissed.
Written submissions by L. John Alexander, for the appellant.
Written submissions by Guy E. McDannold, for the respondent.
The following order was delivered by
1 The Court — The motion to extend the time to apply for a re‑hearing is allowed and the motion for a re‑hearing is dismissed without costs. The issue sought to be clarified by re‑hearing is conclusively addressed by s. 50 of the Supreme Court Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. S‑26 . In accordance with that section, interest at post‑judgment rates accrues from the time of the trial judgment through to the judgment of this Court and beyond until paid.
Motion dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Cox, Taylor, Victoria.
Solicitors for the respondent: Staples McDannold Stewart, Victoria.
Email this Content