PRACTICE |
Judgments and Orders |
Reversal or Variation |
Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc.
T-2406-93
2004 FC 455, Pelletier J.
25/3/04
10 pp.
Motion for reconsideration after judgment issued on ground issue raised at trial not dealt with--Having signed final judgment disposing of all issues Judge normally functus officio, i.e. exhausted jurisdiction over subject-matter of litigation: Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848--Entire system of justice predicated upon finality of judgments--"Slip rule" exception to doctrine of functus officio--Allows court to correct inadvertent slips or clerical errors--Slip rule expressed in Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 397(2)--R. 397(1) rule as to reconsideration particular instance of slip rule--Permitting request that Court reconsider order on ground not according with reasons or matter that should have been dealt with overlooked or accidentally omitted--Significant that power conferred by r. 397 power to correct judgment of Court--Not authorizing revision of reasons for judgment: Sawridge Band of Indians v. Canada (1987), 12 F.T.R. 136 (F.C.T.D.)--Power granted by r. 397 is power to correct slips and oversights in preparation of judgment document--Not power to correct errors in process leading to issuance of judgment--To that extent, Klockner Namasco Corp. v. Federal Hudson (The), [1991] F.C.J. No. 1073 (T.D.) (QL) using r. 397 to justify issuance of supplemental reasons dealing with matter argued, but not dealt with in original reasons and judgment, disagreed with--Nordholm I/S v. Canada (1996), 107 F.T.R. 317 (F.C.T.D.) more similar to this case--Doctrine of functus officio precluding reopening judgment to deal with alleged errors or omissions in reasons which are reflected in signed judgment--Defendants simply attempting to have Court correct what they perceive to be error in reasons--Role of Court of Appeal to correct error, if any--Same logic applied to request for order amending pleadings to conform to evidence and for ruling on issue raised by amended pleadings --Clearly outside scope of r. 397--Defendants submitting r. 75, permitting Court to allow party to amend document "at any time", meaning open to party to apply for amendment even after judgment rendered--Such interpretation would allow party to circumvent doctrine of "functus officio" simply by moving to amend pleadings after judgment--Broad discretion to allow amendments to pleadings at any time prior to judgment extinguished after judgment signed--Application for reconsideration dismissed--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 75, 397.