Global Communications Ltd. v. R., [1997] 3 C.T.C. 2527, 97 D.T.C. 1496

Beaubier T.C.J.:

• 1. Pursuant to the Reasons for Judgment dated May 27, 1997, motions for costs in respect to three Orders which denied motions of the Respondent:

  • (a) Two Orders dated February 24, 1997, one of which was appealed and upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal with a special order for costs.

  • (b) One Order dated March 14, 1997 which was not appealed.

• 2. A motion by the Respondent to reopen the Judgment and order costs in favour of the respondent based upon an offer of settlement for $4.8 million in writing dated April 13, 1997 which was refused.

2 In respect to the Respondent's motion, the Respondent delivered a letter to the Court stating that the parties had agreed to argue costs of the two appeals in toto on May 27, 1997. It arrived after the judgments and reasons for judgments were signed on May 27, 1997. The Respondent relies on Rules 147 and 172.

3 The judgment respecting 1991 was, in some measure, based on the grounds submitted by the Respondent for 1991. The judgment for 1992 was on the same basis, but not on the grounds put forward by either party for 1992. In the Court's view, the matter of party and party costs was decided in the reasons for judgment. The Appellant led a great deal of evidence respecting valuation. The Respondent led a great deal of evidence respecting exploration. The Court did not find in favour of either on these respective grounds. Neither party dealt with the Sale of Goods Act of Alberta or the Bills of Exchange Act. Therefore, the Respondent's motion respecting costs is denied (see Glebe Sugar Refining Co. v. Trustees of Port & Harbours of Greenock, [1921] 2 A.C. 66 (Scotland H.L.).

4 With respect to an award of costs as to motions which were left for the hearing judge, this Court has the benefit of the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in respect to one of the Court's orders of February 24, 1997. The Federal Court of Appeal made a special order for costs, but it did not award solicitor client costs.

5 This Court does not consider any of the motions to warrant an award of solicitor client costs since they did not amount to misconduct. As stated, one February 24, 1997 order was dealt with by the Federal Court of Appeal. The March 14, 1997 order followed an ordinary motion made in the normal course of an action. None of the motions concerned an issue of great importance to parties outside of these proceedings.

6 As a result, the Appellant is awarded one set of party and party costs according to Tariff B, Item 1(b) for each motion ordered upon on February 24, 1997 and for the motion ordered upon on March 14, 1997, constituting the total sum of $1,200.

7 There is no order as to the costs of matters argued on June 23, 1997 resulting in this order.