Williams v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

Williams v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-02-13
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 60
File numbers
T-1646-97
Decision Content
Date: 20010213
Docket: T-1646-97
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 60
BETWEEN:
RONALD WILLIAMS
- and -
144096 Canada Ltd., (carrying on
business as Capital City Helicopters)
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs dated December 22, 2000 for reconsideration of the judgment rendered on August 31, 2000 to request that the Court reconsider the judgment and reasons on the issues 3 and 4 in section 40 of the decision.
[2] The plaintiffs have previously made a motion in writing for the same relief that is sought in this motion.
[3] By a decision rendered on December 19, 2000, this Court dismissed that motion.
[4] The explanations that were given to the Court for failing to ask for reconsideration is based on the fact that the plaintiffs' counsel failed to properly review the reasons for judgment and also that the same counsel incorrectly assumed that the first motion for reconsideration and an extension of time would not be opposed and that it was not necessary to bring supporting evidence nor written representations.
[5] In my view, the principle of res judicata applies here and I see no reason why the plaintiffs should have another "kick to the can".
[6] In Canada v. Chevron Canada Resources Ltd [1999] 1 F.C. 349 (C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal stated:
...where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. [emphasis added]
[7] In my view, the plaintiffs cannot ask the Court to reopen the same subject of litigation a second time.
[8] For these reasons, the motion for an extension of time and for reconsideration of the judgment rendered on August 31, 2000 is dismissed with costs in favour of the defendant.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 13, 2001