Express File Inc. v. HRB Royalty Inc.

Express File Inc. v. HRB Royalty Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2005-02-03
Neutral citation
2005 FCA 47
File numbers
A-364-03, A-365-03
Decision Content
Date: 20050203
Docket: A-364-03
A-365-03
Citation: 2005 FCA 47
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
EXPRESS FILE, INC.
Appellant
and
HRB ROYALTY, INC.
Respondent
Motion dealt with in writing without the appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 3, 2005.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NOËL J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20050203
Docket: A-364-03
A-365-03
Citation: 2005 FCA 47
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
EXPRESS FILE, INC.
Appellant
and
HRB ROYALTY, INC.
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NOËL J.A.
[1] The appellant moves to have the Court reconsider the judgments given on October 14, 2004 dismissing its appeals with costs in favour of the respondent. It submits that the Court inadvertently held that an argument based on the decision of this Court in Canadian Tire Corp. v. P.S. Partsource Inc. (2001), 200 F.T.R. 94, 2001 FCA 8, had not been made in the proceedings below. The appellant submits that as a result the judgments should be reconsidered and the appeals granted with one set of costs throughout in favour of the appellant.
[2] In our view, the question whether Partsource was or was not argued below is controversial and hence cannot be assimilated to a "matter that ... had been overlooked or accidentally omitted" (Rule 397 (1)(b)). The fact that the written submissions before the protonotary and Martineau J. alluded to Partsource, as the appellant asserts, does not establish that the argument was pursued at the hearing. Indeed, Pelletier J. noted at paragraph [1] of the reasons disposing of the appeals "Before us, the appellant argued a different case, a fact confirmed by counsel for the respondent."
[3] In addition, as the motion clearly comes within Rule 397 (1) rather than 397 (2), it had to be brought within 10 days after the issuance of the Judgments. As the respondent points out, it was not and the appellant has provided no reasons to explain the delay.
[4] The motions for reconsideration will be dismissed with one set of costs.
"Marc Noël"
J.A.
"I agree.
M. Nadon, J.A."
"I agree.
J.D.Denis Pelletier, J.A."
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: A-364-03
A-365-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: Express File, Inc. v. HRB Royalty, Inc.
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES.
REASONS FOR ORDER: Noël J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Nadon J.A.
Pelletier J.A.
DATED: February 3, 2005
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. Kenneth D. McKay
FOR THE APPELLANT
Mr. Stefan Martin
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPELLANT
Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP
Montreal (Quebec)
FOR THE RESPONDENT