PRACTICE |
Case Management |
Bates Enterprise Ltd. v. Canada
T-1114-96
2002 FCT 123, Dawson J.
31/1/02
8 pp.
Appeal from Associate Senior Prothonotary's order postponing all matters relating to question of damages to reference to be held after trial--(1) A.S.P. not erring in law in ordering bifurcation in absence of notice of motion--Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 47 providing unless otherwise provided in Rules, discretionary powers of Court may be exercised by Court on own motion--"Court" defined to include prothonotary acting within jurisdiction--R. 107 allowing Court at any time to order issues in proceeding be determined separately--Not providing such power may be exercised only on motion--(2) A.S.P. acting within jurisdiction in making bifurcation order--R. 385(1)(a) permitting prothonotary, assigned under r. 383(c) to assist in management of proceeding where more than $50,000 at issue, to give any directions necessary for just, most expeditious, least expensive determination of proceeding on merits--Severance of issue designed to do precisely that--Pursuant to r. 385(1), prothonotary having ample jurisdiction to pronounce bifurcation order whether or not underlying proceeding referred to in r. 50(2)--Conclusion supported by fact bifurcation orders not enumerated in r. 50(1), which limits jurisdiction of prothonotary--Standard of review on appeals under r. 51 where order under review made in context of case management set out in Sawridge Band v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 346 (C.A.): Court will interfere only in clearest case of misuse of judicial discretion--Microfibres Inc. v. Annabel Canada Inc. (2001), 16 C.P.R. (4th) 12 (F.C.T.D.) holding comment applies by analogy to discretionary decisions of prothonotary made in course of case management of complex matters--Given: definition of "case management judge" including both judges, prothonotaries, and that powers given by r. 385(1) to prothonotary assisting in management of proceeding same as those given to "case management judge", no meaningful basis upon which to conclude standard of review applied to bifurcation orders made in case management proceedings varies depending upon whether order made by prothonotary or by judge--As defendant not showing A.S.P.'s order based upon either wrong principle or misapprehension of all of facts sufficient to constitute demonstrably clear misuse of judicial discretion, open to A.S.P. to conclude trial limited in first instance to determination of existence of any liability more likely to result in just, expeditious, least expensive determination of proceeding on merits--Appeal dismissed--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 2 "case management judge", "Court", 47, 50, 51, 107, 383, 385.