Archibald v. Canada
T-2473-93
Muldoon J.
10/2/98
8 pp.
Costs-Application for order pursuant to R. 337(5)(b) for reconsideration of terms of judgment with respect to award of costs, on basis counsel accidentally omitted to address issue during trial-Reasons for judgment dismissed plaintiffs' action with costs payable by them in defendants' favour-Counsel discussed matter of costs before judgment but both omitted to address issue in Court-Motion dismissed-R. 337(5) not standing for proposition where both sides have acted in error, error constituting grounds for reconsideration by Court; rather, designed to provide Court with means of reconsidering terms of its pronouncement if Court, not parties, has erred in some way-Both Appeal and Trial Divisions of Federal Court have interpreted Rule narrowly, emphasizing finality of judgments, yet providing Court with means to correct errors-"Slip" rule not vehicle to assist counsel in bringing something up after trial which failed to do in course of trial: Maligne Building Ltd. v. The Queen, [1983] 2 F.C. 301 (T.D.)-In Nordholm I/S v. Canada (1996), 107 F.T.R. 317 (F.C.T.D.), Trial Judge faced with motion for reconsideration of cost award (none awarded) on basis issue not addressed by counsel during course of trial-Trial Judge found R. 337(5) did not provide him with jurisdiction to reconsider judgment with respect to costs or to expand on, or otherwise vary, reasons with respect to costs-Furthermore, plaintiffs who sue purportedly in public interest, but unsuccessfully, not entitled to inflict cost of litigation on taxpayers: Reese v. Alberta, [1993] 1 W.W.R. 450 (Alta. Q.B.)-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 337(5).