Date: 20050617
Docket: A-117-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 238
Present: DESJARDINS J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ LE CORRE
Appellant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT OF CANADA
Respondents
Motion in writing decided without appearance of the parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, June 17, 2005.
REASONS FOR ORDER: DESJARDINS J.A.
CONCURRING: NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20050617
Docket: A-117-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 238
Present: DESJARDINS J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ LE CORRE
Appellant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT OF CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
DESJARDINS J.A.
[1] The appellant moves under Rule 397(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, to have the Court set aside the part of his judgment ordering him to pay costs and substitute therefor the words “without costs”.
[2] The judgment of April 12, 2005 reads:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
The appellant asks that it read instead:
The appeal is dismissed without costs.
[3] The appellant relies on Rule 299.41. This is found in the title “Class Actions”, and reads in part:
|
CLASS ACTIONS |
RECOURS COLLECTIFS |
|
...
|
[...]
|
|
Costs |
Dépens |
|
No costs |
Sans dépens |
|
299.41 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no costs may be awarded to any party to a motion for certification of an action as a class action, to a class action or to an appeal arising from a class action at any stage of the motion, class action or appeal.
|
299.41 (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et (3), aucuns dépens ne sont adjugés aux parties à une requête en autorisation d’une action comme recours collectif, à un recours collectif ou à un appel découlant d’un recours collectif, à quelque étape de l’instance que ce soit.
|
|
|
|
|
Exception |
Exception |
|
(2) Costs may be awarded against a party referred to in subsection (1) at any time if |
(2) Les dépens peuvent, à tout moment, être adjugés contre une partie visée au paragraphe (1) dans les cas suivants : |
|
(a) the conduct of the party tended to unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the proceeding; |
a) sa conduite a eu pour effet de prolonger inutilement la durée de l’instance; |
|
(b) any step in the proceeding by the party was improper, vexatious or unnecessary or was taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution; or |
b) une mesure prise par elle au cours de l’instance était inappropriée, vexatoire ou inutile ou a été entreprise de manière négligente, par erreur ou avec trop de circonspection; |
|
(c) there are exceptional circumstances that make it unjust to deprive the successful party of costs.
|
c) des circonstances exceptionnelles font en sorte qu’il serait injuste d’en priver la partie qui a eu gain de cause.
|
|
...
|
[...] |
[4] The matter before us was an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Hugessen dismissing the appellant’s motion for leave to exercise a class action. In their memorandum on the appeal, the respondents asked for costs. There was every indication that this involved the application of the general rule that the winning party is entitled to its costs. The appellant, whose action, he says, was one of the first class actions brought under the new class action rules of the Federal Court, did not object and did not draw our attention to Rule 299.41.
[5] The Court’s power to reconsider under rule 397(2) is limited to the situations described therein:
|
Mistakes 397.(2) Clerical mistakes, errors or omissions in an order may at any time be corrected by the Court.
|
Erreurs 397.(2) Les fautes de transcription, les erreurs et les omissions contenues dans les ordonnances peuvent être corrigées à tout moment par la Cour. |
[6] Rule 299.41 is new law, and the Court as well could have drawn the parties’ attention to its content. I think that, in this case, there was an “error in expressing the manifest intention of the court” (Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848, page 860, cited in Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc., 253 F.T.R. 122, at para. 9; Besse v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.) (1999), 250 N.R. 308). This warrants the application of the new rule, which constitutes an exception to the general rule. There is no reason to apply the exception contained in the second paragraph of this rule and to deprive the appellant of the benefit of this rule, as the Attorney General of Canada argues.
[7] I would allow the motion and strike the words “with costs” from the Court’s judgment dated April 12, 2005. I would add the words “without costs”.
[8] The judgment of the Court dated April 12, 2005 should now read:
The appeal is dismissed without costs.
“Alice Desjardins”
J.A.
“M. Nadon J.A.”
“J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-117-04
STYLE: André Le Corre v. The Attorney General of Canada and Department of Human Resources Development of Canada
MOTION IN WRITING DECIDED WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER: Desjardins J.A.
CONCURRING: Nadon J.A.
Pelletier J.A.
DATED: June 17, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Fredy Adams FOR THE APPELLANT
Gilles Gareau
Frederic Paquin FOR THE RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Adams, Gareau FOR THE APPELLANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Ottawa, Ontario