PRACTICE |
Case Management |
Microfibres Inc. v. Annabel Canada Inc.
T-2680-97
2001 FCT 97, Gibson J.
5/12/01
8 pp.
Appeal from Prothonotary's dismissal of motion for separate determination of issues--Defendants arguing trial should be split--Submitted prothonotary exercised discretion either on basis of wrong principle or upon misapprehension of facts, or both--In Sawridge Band v. Canada, 2001 FCA 338; [2001] F.C.J. No. 1684 (C.A.) (QL) Rothstein J. stating on appeals from orders of case management judges Court will interfere only in clearest case of misuse of judicial discretion-- Comments, made in context of case management by case management judge whose decision only appealable directly to Court of Appeal, apply by analogy to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries made in course of case manage-ment in complex matters such as this--Case management prothonotaries must be given latitude to manage cases in same manner as case management judges--Case management prothonotaries familiar with proceedings managing to degree that trial judge, sitting on appeal from prothonotary's discretionary decision, usually not--R. 107 permitting Court to order trial of separate issues--Issue before Prothonotary leaving him degree of discretion--Conclusion not affecting question vital to final issue of case, but involving question very similar to questions of joinder, severance that are quintessential subject-matters of case management-- Prothonotary's decision not based upon wrong principle or misapprehension of facts amounting to demonstrably clear misuse of judicial discretion--Evidence before Court that was not before Prothonotary demonstrating defendants' concerns about readiness for trial on all issues might be demonstrably better founded now than when issue of splitting trial before Prothonotary--Motion considered by Prothonotary second such motion--As to whether issue of splitting trial res judicata, Pelletier J. holding 2001 FCT 1032; [2001] F.C.J. No. 1427 (T.D.) (QL): given mandate of case manager to give such directions as may lead to most just, expeditious, least expensive resolution of dispute, case manager acting outside adversarial system because entitled to act on own motion; r. 385 conferring authority to grant leave to bring motion otherwise caught by doctrine of res judicata--But holding power of case manager to revisit question already decided not to be exercised capriciously; test for deciding whether case manager acted capriciously whether facts from which case manager could conclude process of bringing case to fair trial could be assisted by revisiting particular question; case manager's views on this question entitled to considerable deference--Same reasoning applies to possibility of further motion under r. 107--Furthermore, given proximity of trial dates herein, discretion to waive bar normally arising by failure of previous motions under r. 107 to seek same relief, should be extended to Trial Judge as well as to case management prothonotary--Waiving bar matter of discretion entitled to considerable deference--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 107.