Date: 20000216
Docket: T-1296-97
BETWEEN:
SYDNEY JEAN SMITH
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE PRESIDENT
OF TREASURY BOARD and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] By notice of motion dated February 7, 2000, the applicant applied for an order pursuant to Rule 397 of the Federal Court Rules, for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration as well as a reconsideration of the Reasons for Order and Order of Mr. Justice Blais, dated November 9, 1999, on the basis that the Court omitted to include in its judgments reference to paragraph 6(1)(a) of the PBDR.
[2] Rule 397 states:
| (1) Within 10 days after the making of an order, or within such other time as the Court may allow, a party may serve and file a notice of motion to request that the Court, as constituted at the time the order was made, reconsider its terms on the ground that (a) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it; or (b) a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted. (2) Mistakes"Clerical mistakes, errors or omissions in an order may at any time be corrected by the Court. |
(1) Dans les 10 jours après qu"une ordonnance a été rendue ou dans tout autre délai accordé par la Cour, une partie peut signifier et déposer un avis de requête demandant à la Cour qui a rendu l"ordonnance, telle qu"elle était constituée à ce moment, d"en examiner de nouveau les termes, mais seulement pour l"une ou l"autre des raisons suivantes: a) l"ordonnance ne concorde pas avec les motifs qui, le cas échéant, ont été donnés pour la justifier; b) une question qui aurait dû être traitée a été oubliée ou omise involontairement. (2) Erreurs"Les fautes de transcription, les erreurs et les omissions contenues dans les ordonnances peuvent être corrigées à tout moment par la Cour. |
[3] Since the applicant missed the 10 day period set out in Rule 397, she requested an extension of time. Seeing the respondent"s consent and after reading the submissions of the applicant, the Court grants the extension of time to file the reconsideration motion.
[4] InMaligne Building Ltd. et al v. The Queen and Minister of the Environment of Canada, [1983] 2 F.C. 301, (T.D), Mr. Justice Dubé described Rule 337(5) in the following manner, at pages 304 to 305:
| The plain meaning of Rule 337(5) (the so-called "Slip Rule"), as I read it, is that the Court may reconsider the terms of its pronouncement if the pronouncement does not accord with the reasons given by the judge, or that some matter has been overlooked by the judge. In other words, if the Court has slipped in some technical matter it may take the necessary steps to correct the situation. The Slip Rule is not a vehicle to assist counsel in bringing something up after trial which he failed to do in the course of trial. It is axiomatic that there must be finality in judgments. |
[5] In Polylok Corporation v. Montreal Fast Print (1975) Ltd., [1984] 1 F.C. 713 (C.A.), Chief Justice Thurlow explained the scope of Rule 337(6) at page 720:
| Having regard to the broad inherent authority exercised in times past by Courts to correct formal judgments or orders to make them accord with the judgment as pronounced or intended, it appears to me that this portion of the Rule should be given a scope which is broad enough to enable the Court to amend so as to make a judgment conform to what was intended when it was pronounced, but that it cannot and should not be used to authorize a judge to review or rescind his judgment or to alter it so as to reflect a change of mind as to what the judgment should have been. |
[Rule 397 replaced former Rules 337(5) and (6)]
[6] In the present case, the applicant in her originating notice of motion requested a declaration that section 6 of the PBDR is ultra vires. Furthermore, the applicant, as well as the respondent, argued the invalidity or validity of section 6 in both their written and oral submissions. The Court agreed that the time limit set in the regulation is contrary to the purpose of the Act. Given the facts in the matters, I am of the view that the decision should be reconsidered.
[7] The Court accidentally omitted to include references to paragraph 6(1)(a) as was its intent.
[8] For those reasons, THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
| - The extension of time for a motion to reconsider the decision shall be granted; |
| - This motion for reconsideration of the Reasons for Order and Order be granted; |
| - References to "paragraph 6(1)(b) of the PBDR" in paragraphs 16, 25 and 37 of the Reasons for Order and Order dated November 9, 1999 shall be replaced by "subsection 6(1) of the PBDR". |
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 16, 2000