PRACTICE |
Case Management |
Trevor Nicholas Construction Co. v. Canada (Minister for Public Works)
T-1049-95
2004 FC 238, Gibson J.
16/2/04
9 pp.
Appeal from Prothonotary's orders dismissing motion for order striking statement of defence--Action case managed by Hugessen J. with Lafrenière P. appointed to assist--Whether Prothonotary acted without jurisdiction in dealing with Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 369 motions giving rise to orders in question as not Prothonotary appointed to assist--R. 385(1) provides case management judge, or prothonotary assigned to assist, shall deal with all matters arising prior to trial or hearing of specially managed proceeding in relation to which appointed--Unlike Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Court Rules, 1998 apply throughout Canada--All Federal Court judges required to reside in or close to National Capital Region--Court currently has prothonotaries resident only in Ottawa, Montréal, Toronto, Vancouver--Important all judges and prothonotaries of Court have jurisdiction and flexibility to ensure work of Court carried forward in most efficient and effective manner practicable--R. 385 not intended to limit flexibility of Court--Unlikely Rules conferring jurisdiction on prothonotaries on one hand, would purport to take away some of such jurisdiction in case management situations--Prothonotary had jurisdiction to make orders at issue notwithstanding seemingly mandatory language of r. 385(1)--R. 385(1) imposes mandatory obligation on case management judges and prothonotaries to deal with all matters arising prior to trial or hearing and that come before them--R. 385(1) not eliminating jurisdiction of other judges and prothonotaries on such matters coming before them when it would facilitate work of Court for them to deal with those matters--Whether Prothonotary erred in granting orders in question--No basis on which to conclude Prothonotary exercised discretion upon wrong principle as expression elaborated upon in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 (C.A.)--No basis on which to conclude Prothonotary misapprehended facts before her--Reasonably open to her to conclude questions required to be answered by orders of Prothonotary Lafrenière and O'Keefe J. answered, including appropriate follow-up questions, and questions plaintiff sought to characterize as follow-up or otherwise appropriate properly refused--No basis for disturbing discretionary orders of Prothonotary-- Appeal dismissed--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 369, 385 (as am. by SOR/2002-417, s. 24)--Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.