Thompson v. Consolidated Fastfrate Inc., 2005 SKQB 439

• Judge: Dawson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 18, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2005 SKQB 439;(2005), 272 Sask.R. 304 (QB)

Thompson v. Consolidated Fastfrate (2005), 272 Sask.R. 304 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.048

Dawson Roy Thompson (plaintiff) v. Consolidated Fastfrate Inc. (defendant)

(2004 Q.B.G. No. 549; 2005 SKQB 439)

Indexed As: Thompson v. Consolidated Fastfrate Inc.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Dawson, J.

October 18, 2005.

Summary:

The successful plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought two motions: (1) for recovery of jury fees and (2) entitlement to pre-judgment interest on the full amount of the judgment from the date of termination. Neither motion was sustainable. The first motion was withdrawn two weeks before the return date. The plaintiff sought to withdraw the second motion on the return date, with both sides bearing their own costs. The defendant had informed the plaintiff several days earlier of case law making the second motion ill-fated.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the defendant was entitled to costs of $750.

Practice - Topic 3140

Applications and motions - Motions - Withdrawal of (incl. costs) - The plaintiff brought a motion for pre-judgment interest on the full amount of his wrongful dismissal damages from the date of termination - The caselaw, which the plaintiff did not find, entitled the plaintiff to pre-judgment interest only on an interval basis - The defendant possessed this caselaw and only provided the plaintiff with a copy several days before the return date - On the return date, the plaintiff sought withdrawal of his motion with each party bearing their own costs, complaining that the defendant had only just provided him with the caselaw that made his motion ill-fated - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench awarded the defendant $750 in costs - The plaintiff brought a motion for relief to which he was not in law entitled - Researching the law in support of the motion was the plaintiff's responsibility, not the defendant's - The plaintiff's failure to determine the applicable law resulted in an unnecessary motion which the defendant was forced to defend.

Practice - Topic 7364

Costs - Costs of interlocutory proceedings - Costs of motions or applications - [See Practice - Topic 3140 ].

Cases Noticed:

Janke v. Cenalta Oilwell Servicing Ltd. et al., [1997] 3 W.W.R. 406; 152 Sask.R. 32; 140 W.A.C. 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Jury Act, S.S. 1998, c. J-4.2, sect. 18(2), sect. 18(3) [para. 3].

Pre-judgment Interest Act, S.S. 1984-85-86, c. P-22.2, sect. 6(2) [para. 4].

Counsel:

Daniel S. Tapp, for the plaintiff;

David E. Thera, for the defendant.

This matter was heard before Dawson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on October 18, 2005.