Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., (1993) 149 N.R. 273 (FCA)
| Judge | Isaac, C.J., Mahoney, MacGuigan, Décary and Robertson, JJ.A. |
| Court | Federal Court of Appeal (Canada) |
| Case Date | February 04, 1993 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (1993), 149 N.R. 273 (FCA);1993 CanLII 2939 (FCA);149 NR 273;[1993] 1 CTC 186;[1993] FCJ No 103 (QL);39 ACWS (3d) 59;47 DTC 5080;61 FTR 44 |
Can. v. Aqua-Gem Inv. Ltd. (1993), 149 N.R. 273 (FCA)
MLB headnote and full text
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. (respondent)
(A-1191-91)
Indexed As: Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd.
Federal Court of Appeal
Isaac, C.J., Mahoney, MacGuigan, Décary and Robertson, JJ.A.
February 4, 1993.
Summary:
The Associate Senior Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the defendant's application to dismiss the plaintiff's action under rule 440 for want of prosecution. The defendant appealed under rule 336(5), seeking to reverse the Prothonotary's decision.
The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 50 F.T.R. 115, heard the application de novo and exercised its own discretion. The court allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff appealed.
The Federal Court of Appeal, Isaac, C.J., and Robertson, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The trial judge employed the appropriate standard of review and did not err in exercising his discretion.
Courts - Topic 2583
Registrars and prothonotaries - Appeals from - Scope of review - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that "discretionary orders of prothonotaries ought not to be disturbed on appeal to a judge unless: (a) they are clearly wrong, in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts, or (b) they raise questions vital to the final issue of the case." - If either (a) or (b) occurred, the trial judge was to exercise his own discretion de novo - The court stated that "a decision which can thus be either interlocutory or final depending on how it is decided, even if interlocutory because of the result, must nevertheless be considered vital to the final resolution of the case." - The court stated that a prothonotary's decision dismissing a defendant's application to dismiss the plaintiff's action for want of prosecution was vital to the final resolution of the case and the trial judge, on appeal, was to exercise his discretion de novo - See paragraphs 94 to 100.
Practice - Topic 5360
Dismissal of action - Grounds - Want of prosecution - Delay - The plaintiff's action (tax appeal) was commenced in July 1986 - The statement of defence was filed in March 1987 - The plaintiff agreed in March 1988 to furnish an agreed statement of facts - The defendant agreed to review it - The draft statement was not sent to the defendant until May 1990 and was ignored by the defendant - The trial judge dismissed the plaintiff's action for want of prosecution - The trial judge found, as fact, that the plaintiff's delay was inordinate, inexcusable and would prejudice the defendant - The trial judge stated that the defendant's failure to take timely action in the face of the plaintiff's delay did not excuse the plaintiff's obligation to prosecute in a timely fashion - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge did not err in exercising his discretion - See paragraphs 101 to 108.
Cases Noticed:
Minister of National Revenue v. Ensite Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 509; 70 N.R. 189, refd to. [para. 7].
Ship Jala Godavari et al. v. Canada et al. (1991), 135 N.R. 316; 40 C.P.R.(3d) 127 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 21].
Schulthorpe v. Burn (1866), 12 Gr. 427, refd to. [para. 30].
Adamson v. Adamson (1888), 12 P.R. 469, refd to. [para. 32].
Odell v. Mulholland (1891), 14 P.R. 180, refd to. [para. 32].
Quality Steels (London) Ltd. v. Atlas Steels Ltd., [1949] O.W.N. 110, refd to. [para. 33].
Evans v. Bartlam, [1937] A.C. 473 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 33].
Marleen Investments Ltd. v. McBride (1979), 23 O.R.(2d) 125 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 34].
Stoicevski v. Casement (1983), 43 O.R.(2d) 436 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].
Branche v. MacArthur and McKee (1986), 16 O.A.C. 306; 11 C.P.C.(2d) 8 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].
John Wink Ltd. v. Sico Inc. (1987), 57 O.R.(2d) 705 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 38].
Das et al. v. Coles et al. (1989), 71 O.R.(2d) 57 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 38].
Hart v. Kowall (1990), 74 D.L.R.(4th) 126 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].
L.C.D.H. Audio Visual Ltd. v. I.S.T.S. Verbatim Ltd. et al. (1986), 54 O.R.(2d) 425 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 39].
Fazzari et al. v. Pellizzari et al. (1988), 28 O.A.C. 38 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].
King v. Drysdale (1892), 24 N.S.R. 308, refd to. [para. 41].
Starratt v. White (1913), 47 N.S.R. 163, refd to. [para. 41].
Alberta Wheat Pool v. Nahajowicz, [1930] 1 W.W.R. 483 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 42].
Wright v. Disposal Services Ltd. and Marsh (1977), 8 A.R. 394; 4 Alta. L.R.(2d) 173 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].
274099 Alberta Ltd. v. West Edmonton Mall Shopping Centre Ltd. et al. (1990), 114 A.R. 57; 75 Alta. L.R.(2d) 389 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].
Abermin Corp. v. Granges Exploration Ltd. (1990), 45 B.C.L.R.(2d) 188 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 46].
Lacaud v. Leblanc, [1983] C.S. 555 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 50].
Solloway Mills & Co. in Liquidation, Re, [1935] O.R. 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].
Iscar Ltd. v. Karl Hertel GmbH, [1989] 3 F.C. 479 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].
Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp. et al. (1988), 25 F.T.R. 226 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 59].
Johnson Products Co. Inc. v. Truso Ltd. (1987), 10 F.T.R. 156; 15 C.P.R.(3d) 76 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 3].
Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Co. et al. (1987), 19 F.T.R. 214; 12 C.I.P.R. 260 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 3].
Westinghouse Electric Corp. et al. v. Babcock & Wilcox Industries Ltd. et al. (1987), 15 F.T.R. 154 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 3].
Standal Estate et al. v. Swecan International Ltd. et al. (1989), 27 F.T.R. 1 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 3].
Syntex Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. (No. 1) (1989), 28 F.T.R. 118 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 3].
Unilever PLC v. Procter & Gamble Inc. (1989), 38 F.T.R. 319; 24 C.P.R.(3d) 388 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 3].
David et al. v. Kluger et al. (1991), 51 F.T.R. 234 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 3].
Prouvost S.A. v. Munsingwear Inc., [1992] 2 F.C. 541; 141 N.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].
Canastrand Industries Ltd. v. Ship Lara S et al. (1992), 54 F.T.R. 145 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 61].
Ruhrkohle Handel Inter GmbH v. Fednav Ltd. et al., [1992] 3 F.C. 99; 144 N.R. 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].
Do Carmo v. Ford Excavations, [1981] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 409, refd to. [para. 69].
Norton Co. v. Lionite Abrasives Ltd. (1975), 32 C.P.R.(2d) 270, refd to. [para. 74].
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Losicon Inc., [1984] 1 F.C. 380, refd to. [para. 74].
McGregor v. Canada (1988), 20 F.T.R. 122 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 74].
Farrar v. McMullen, [1971] 1 O.R. 709 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].
Allen v. Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd., [1968] All E.R. 543 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].
Hendrickson v. Kallio, [1932] O.R. 675 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 4].
Bozson v. Altrincham Urban District Council, [1903] 1 K.B. 547 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 4].
Nichols v. Canada et al. (1990), 36 F.T.R. 77 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 80].
Birkett v. James, [1978] A.C. 297 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 81].
Department of Transport v. Chris Smaller (Transport) Ltd., [1989] A.C. 1197 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 82].
Walkley v. Precision Forgings Ltd., [1979] 2 All E.R. 548 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 83].
Bremer Vulkan Schiffbav und Maschinenfabrik v. South Indian Shipping Corp., [1981] A.C. 909 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 83].
Paul Wilson & Co. A/S v. Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal, [1983] A.C. 854 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 83].
Canada (Attorney General) v. S.F. Enterprises Inc. (1990), 107 N.R. 100 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].
Ainsworth v. Bickersteth, [1947] 3 D.L.R. 517, refd to. [para. 97].
Murphy v. Canada (1988), 95 N.R. 75; 89 D.T.C. 5028 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Ship M/V Norango, [1976] 2 F.C. 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104, footnote 6].
Statutes Noticed:
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 41, art. 42, art. 44.1, art. 511 [para. 50].
Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 101 [para. 53].
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 3 [para. 23]; sect. 12 [para. 24]; sect. 46(h) [para. 25]; sect. 50(1)(b) [para. 1].
Federal Court Rules, rule 331A [para. 107]; rule 336(1), rule 336(3) [para. 25]; rule 336(5) [para. 26]; rule 419(9) [para. 69]; rule 440 [para. 1]; rule 447(2) [para. 107].
Supreme and Exchequer Court Act, S.C. 1875, c. 11, sect. 70 [para. 23, footnote 1].
Supreme and Exchequer Court Act, S.C. 1887, c. 16, sect. 9 [para. 23, footnote 1].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Audet, Les officiers de Justice: Des origines de la colonie jusqu'à nos jours, 1986, pp. 53 to 60, 175, 176, 199 to 204 [para. 50].
Jacob, Jack, The Fabric of English Civil Justice (1987), pp. 110, 111 [para. 29]; 112 [para. 54].
Counsel:
Harry Erlichman and Laura C. Snowball, for the appellant;
Richard G. Fitzsimmons and Daniel F. Chitiz, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;
Fitzsimmons, MacFarlane, Slocum & Harper, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 9, 1992, at Toronto, Ontario, before Isaac, C.J., Mahoney, MacGuigan, Décary and Robertson, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on February 4, 1993, when the following opinions were filed:
Isaac, C.J., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 92;
MacGuigan, J.A. (Mahoney and Décary, JJ.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 93 to 108;
Robertson, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 109 to 117.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pompey (Z.I.) Industrie et al. v. Ecu-Line N.V. et al., (2003) 303 N.R. 201 (SCC)
...Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.). Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 ; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. Jian Sheng Co. v. Great Tempo S.A., [1998] 3 F.C. 418 ; 225 N.R. 140 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1998] ......
-
Canada (Procureur général) c. Slansky,
...P.D. 141; Vancouver Sun (Re), 2004 SCC 43, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332.REFERRED TO:Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425, [1993] 1 C.T.C. 186 (C.A.); Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line N.V., 2003 SCC 27, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450; Three Rivers District Council & Ors v. Bank of England......
-
Slansky v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2013) 449 N.R. 28 (FCA)
...to legal advice privilege - See paragraphs 9, 64 to 109 and 118. Cases Noticed: Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 ; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. Pompey (Z.I.) Industrie et al. v. Ecu-Line N.V. et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450 ; 303 N.R. 201 ; 2003 SCC 27 , refd......
-
Hospira Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215
...Registrars and prothonotaries - Appeals from - Scope of review - The Federal Court of Appeal, in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. (1993), 149 N.R. 273, determined that "discretionary orders of prothonotaries ought not to be disturbed on appeal to a judge unless: (a) they are clearly wron......
-
Pompey (Z.I.) Industrie et al. v. Ecu-Line N.V. et al., (2003) 303 N.R. 201 (SCC)
...Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.). Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 ; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. Jian Sheng Co. v. Great Tempo S.A., [1998] 3 F.C. 418 ; 225 N.R. 140 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1998] ......
-
Canada (Procureur général) c. Slansky,
...P.D. 141; Vancouver Sun (Re), 2004 SCC 43, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332.REFERRED TO:Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425, [1993] 1 C.T.C. 186 (C.A.); Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line N.V., 2003 SCC 27, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450; Three Rivers District Council & Ors v. Bank of England......
-
Slansky v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2013) 449 N.R. 28 (FCA)
...to legal advice privilege - See paragraphs 9, 64 to 109 and 118. Cases Noticed: Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 ; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. Pompey (Z.I.) Industrie et al. v. Ecu-Line N.V. et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450 ; 303 N.R. 201 ; 2003 SCC 27 , refd......
-
Hospira Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215
...Registrars and prothonotaries - Appeals from - Scope of review - The Federal Court of Appeal, in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. (1993), 149 N.R. 273, determined that "discretionary orders of prothonotaries ought not to be disturbed on appeal to a judge unless: (a) they are clearly wron......
-
THE SUPER PANEL DOCTRINE.
... 2016 FCA 215 [Hospira]. Of note, the prior decision the Court reconsidered was R v Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd, [1993] 2 FC 425 , 61 FTR 44 (CA), which was also the last time the Federal Court of Appeal had convened a super (71) Of interest, the Court of Appeal of Quebec has also adopted th......