|
Federal Court - Mistake Correction. Canada v. Hudson
In Canada v. Hudson (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal applies a 'mistake' provision from the FCR [Rule 397(2)], here regarding costs orders and reasons:[1] Canada moves under subsection 397(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (the Rules), to have the Court set aside the parts of the Judgments and Reasons for Judgment, dated February 20, 2024, ordering them to pay costs, and to substitute the words "“without costs”" for the existing words "“with costs”".
[2] The respondents, the plaintiffs in Hudson and Pierrot, did not mention costs in their submissions to this Court on the merits of the appeal and did not provide responding submissions on this motion.
....
[4] This Court did not consider Rule 334.39 [SS: costs in class actions] in rendering the decisions on costs and it is open to us to reconsider that part of the judgments (and reasons) pursuant to subsection 397(2) of the Rules: Siddiqui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 237 at paras. 20-21; Le Corre v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 238 at paras. 6-8.
....
[9] Rule 334.39(1) applies to the Hudson parties. While Rule 334.39(1) is not, strictly speaking, engaged in respect of the Pierrot parties, given the reasons for the matter being stayed, it would be inappropriate to depart from the "“no costs”" regime. Moreover, the plaintiffs in both Hudson and Pierrot did not mention costs in their submissions to this Court. Accordingly, none should be awarded: Chen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FCA 170 at para. 60; Exeter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FCA 134 at para. 12.
[10] For the foregoing reasons, I would allow the motion, delete the words "“with costs”", and replace them with the words "“without costs”" in the Court’s judgments and reasons (at paragraph 93), dated February 20, 2024.
|
