Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20000418

Docket: A-417-99

CORAM :       DÉCARY J.A.

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

NOËL J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                         LES ENTREPRISES A.B. RIMOUSKI INC.

                                                       AND ALDÈGE BANVILLE

                                                                                                                                            Appellants

                                                                         - and -

                                                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                          Respondent

Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on Wednesday, April 12, 2000

Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on Tuesday, April 18, 2000

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                                NOËL J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                     LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                                                                                                                                    DÉCARY J.A.

                                                                             


Date: 20000418

Docket: A-417-99

CORAM :       DÉCARY J.A.

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

NOËL J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                         LES ENTREPRISES A.B. RIMOUSKI INC.

                                                       AND ALDÈGE BANVILLE

                                                                                                                                            Appellants

                                                                         - and -

                                                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                          Respondent

                                                    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NOËLJ.A.

[1]         This is an appeal from a decision of Rouleau J. refusing to vary the assessment officer's award with respect to costs payable by the appellants as a result of the Trial Division dismissing their action.


[2]         By order dated October 11, 1996, Denault J. dismissed, with costs, the action brought by Mr. Banville in his personal capacity and as assignee of the rights of A.B. Rimouski. On June 26, 1998, our Court upheld Denault J.'s conclusions regarding Mr. Banville's personal action but allowed, with costs, Mr. Banville's appeal in his capacity as assignee of the rights of A.B. Rimouski. Our Court then referred the matter back to Denault J. for reconsideration of the merits of A.B. Rimouski's contractual remedy. On October 9, 1998, Mr. Banville's action in his capacity as assignee was dismissed, with costs, by Denault J.

[3]         At issue in this appeal are the costs resulting from the two dismissals of the appellants' action by the Trial Division.

[4]         The appellants maintain that no costs are owed, because this Court allowed their appeal from the Trial Division's first judgment, with costs, and referred the matter back to the trial judge for reconsideration of one part of the issue in dispute. According to the appellants, in granting their appeal, with costs, this Court intended to include both the costs here as well as in the court below.


[5]         The appellants have misread our decision. It is clear on its face that the costs awarded relate to costs of the appeal only. Since the order dismissing Mr. Banville's personal action, with costs, was confirmed on appeal, and since Mr. Banville's action in his capacity as assignee was also dismissed, with costs, the Crown is entitled to have its costs paid by both appellants herein.

[6]         Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed and, under the circumstances, without costs.

               Marc Noël              

J.A.

"I concur.

Robert Décary J.A."

"I concur.

Gilles Létourneau J.A."

Certified true translation

Mary Jo Egan, LL.B.


Date: 20000418

Docket: A-417-99

Ottawa, Ontario, Tuesday, April 18, 2000

CORAM :        DÉCARY J.A.

          LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

NOËL J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                        LES ENTREPRISES A.B. RIMOUSKI INC.

                                                      AND ALDÈGE BANVILLE

                                                                                                                                          Appellants

                                                                         - and -

                                                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appeal is dismissed, without costs.

                   Robert Décary             

J.A.

Certified true translation

Mary Jo Egan, LL.B.


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

APPEAL DIVISION

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:                                          A-417-99

STYLE OF CAUSE:

LES ENTREPRISES A.B.RIMOUSKI INC.

AND ALDÈGE BANVILLE

Appellants

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                    MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

DATE OF HEARING:                       APRIL 12, 2000

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NOËL J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                        LÉTOURNEAU and DÉCARY J.J.A.

DATED:                                              APRIL 18, 2000

APPEARANCES:

Aldège Banville                                                                       FOR HIMSELF

Stéphane Lilkoff                                                                      FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario                                                              FOR THE RESPONDENT   


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.