Alcan Aluminium Ltd. v. Unican International S.A.
T-1217-90
Nadon J.
25/9/96
13 pp.
Action against C.T.O. International Limited allowed; action against Unican International S.A. dismissed-Plaintiffs seeking interest at commercial rates-As maritime cases excepted from general rule in Federal Court Act, s. 36 providing prejudgment interest governed by law in force in province where cause of action arising, Trial Judge retaining discretion to award prejudgment interest at appropriate rate-As plaintiffs not offering evidence with regard to rates, Court allowing interest at legal rate of 5%-S. 37 providing post-judgment interest governed by law of province where cause of action arising, i.e. Quebec-Quebec Civil Code, Art. 1619 providing successful plaintiff entitled to indemnity equal to difference between rate agreed to by parties and, if no agreement, legal rate and rate of interest fixed pursuant to the Loi sur le ministère du Revenu, s. 28-To obtain additional indemnity plaintiff must, in pleadings, specifically ask Court to allow him such indemnity-Not necessary for plaintiff to allege, prove specific rate of interest since Court having judicial knowledge of these rates, fixed by provincial regulation-As not claiming additional indemnity in statement of claim, plaintiffs applying to amend statement of claim to claim additional indemnity-Since judgment not yet rendered with respect to rates of interest, motion allowed-As no reason not to grant additional indemnity, plaintiffs entitled to interest of 5% on judgment, plus indemnity of 5% over and above legal interest rate-As successful party, Unican entitled to costs-Sanderson order directing Unican to recover costs from C.T.O. inappropriate-Proposals contained in C.T.O.'s letters of November 23, 1990 and September 18, 1995 not offers of settlement within Federal Court Rules, RR. 344(3)(g), 344.1-Letter of November 23 simply counsel's proposal to make recommendation to client-Acceptance of proposal in September letter not leading to settlement of litigation-To achieve settlement between plaintiffs and C.T.O., further agreement between C.T.O. and Unican had to be concluded-Conditions in September letter forming basis of possible agreement between defendants-By failing to obtain Unican's agreement before making proposal in September letter, proposal not offer of settlement-Bullock order appropriate-As C.T.O., before and during trial, taking position acting as agent for Unican, not unreasonable for plaintiffs to have sued both defendants, pursued action against both defendants to trial-C.T.O. ordered to reimburse plaintiffs for costs will have to pay to Unican-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 344(3)(g) (as am. by SOR/87-221, s. 2), 344.1 (as enacted by SOR/94-41, s. 3), 420-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 36 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 9), 37 (as am. idem)-Quebec Civil Code of Quebec, Art. 1619-Loi sur le ministère du Revenu, R.S.Q., c. M-31, s. 28.