PRACTICE |
Pleadings |
Amendments |
Louis Bull Band v. Canada
T-2171-98
2003 FCT 732, Snider J.
12/6/03
17 pp.
Motion by defendant to set aside order of Prothonotary Aronovitch granting plaintiffs' motion to amend statement of claim, denying defendant's cross-motion to consolidate, stay action--In original statement of claim, plaintiffs claiming Louis Bull Band not responsible for back pay of per capita distributions between 1974 and 1983 to four "Fayant children", whose names taken off Band membership list in 1974, reinstated in 1983--At issue which of parties ought to be responsible for total back payment of $304,139.52--After examinations for discovery, plaintiffs found another consequence of Fayant children not being on Band list between 1975 and 1983--Plaintiffs filed motion requesting leave to file amended statement of claim--Amendments would add claim in respect of royalty payments--Most significant amendment proposed in respect of "special damages"--Decision of Prothonotary Aronovitch made in context of case management--Reasons for giving substantial deference to decisions of judges, prothonotaries in context of case management compelling--Case management involves ongoing relationship between parties, judge or prothonotary-- Single decision may be part of ongoing series of related motions, actions--Motion argued before Prothonotary Aronovitch related to completely new matter--Order not result of ongoing management function but new matter in respect of which she had no special knowledge--Court may intervene, exercise discretion de novo if addition of amendments to statement of claim raises questions vital to final issue of case--Decision to add new cause of action raising question vital to final issue of case assuming amendments to statement of claim herein resulted in addition of new cause of action--Court may exercise discretion de novo--Prothonotary's exercise of discretion based upon wrong principle, misapprehension of facts--Amendments characterized as new cause of action not arising out of substantially same facts as original cause of action--Proposed amendments not falling within r. 201, should not have been allowed--In exercising discretion de novo, Court disallowed amendments--At best, amendment unnecessary duplication of royalty calculations, at worst, case of inconsistent pleadings contrary to r. 180--Action not appropriate forum for carrying out redistribution, recalculation of royalties--Better use of Court's scarce resources to deal with original claim on its own--Decision of Prothonotary should not stand--Motion allowed--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 180, 201.