Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Archibald v. Canada

T-2473-93

Muldoon J.

10/2/98

8 pp.

Costs-Application for order pursuant to R. 337(5)(b) for reconsideration of terms of judgment with respect to award of costs, on basis counsel accidentally omitted to address issue during trial-Reasons for judgment dismissed plaintiffs' action with costs payable by them in defendants' favour-Counsel discussed matter of costs before judgment but both omitted to address issue in Court-Motion dismissed-R. 337(5) not standing for proposition where both sides have acted in error, error constituting grounds for reconsideration by Court; rather, designed to provide Court with means of reconsidering terms of its pronouncement if Court, not parties, has erred in some way-Both Appeal and Trial Divisions of Federal Court have interpreted Rule narrowly, emphasizing finality of judgments, yet providing Court with means to correct errors-"Slip" rule not vehicle to assist counsel in bringing something up after trial which failed to do in course of trial: Maligne Building Ltd. v. The Queen, [1983] 2 F.C. 301 (T.D.)-In Nordholm I/S v. Canada (1996), 107 F.T.R. 317 (F.C.T.D.), Trial Judge faced with motion for reconsideration of cost award (none awarded) on basis issue not addressed by counsel during course of trial-Trial Judge found R. 337(5) did not provide him with jurisdiction to reconsider judgment with respect to costs or to expand on, or otherwise vary, reasons with respect to costs-Furthermore, plaintiffs who sue purportedly in public interest, but unsuccessfully, not entitled to inflict cost of litigation on taxpayers: Reese v. Alberta, [1993] 1 W.W.R. 450 (Alta. Q.B.)-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 337(5).

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.