Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20020131

Docket: T-1114-96

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 123

Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday the 31^st day of January 2002

PRESENT:      The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson

BETWEEN:

BATES ENTERPRISE LIMITED and 3426106 MANITOBA LTD.

and NORMAN ANDREW c.o.b. LONE TREE FARM

                                                                                                                                               Plaintiffs

                                                                         - and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

                                                                                                                                            Defendant

                                          REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

DAWSON J.

[1]                 The defendant brings this appeal pursuant to Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 ("Rules") from an order of the Associate Senior Prothonotary which ordered that, if necessary, all matters relating to the question of damages should be postponed to a reference to be held after trial.

[2]                 The underlying action involves a claim brought in negligence against Agriculture Canada relating to its regulation and inspection of the plaintiffs' importation from the United States of exotic Chinese "Shar-pei" pigs. The plaintiffs allege that had Agriculture Canada not been negligent in the certification of certain imported pigs, the plaintiffs would not have paid the vendor for the pigs. The plaintiffs say they would instead have invested their money in elk ranching where, they claim, they would have earned over one million dollars in profits.

[3]                 The reasons underlying the Associate Senior Prothonotary's order were endorsed on the order in the following terms:

The matter of a reference for the determination of damages to be held after trial, if necessary, was proposed by the Plaintiffs and opposed by the Defendant. The contentious issue was the proper forum for the consideration of the matter of use of the funds wasted on pigs in elk farming. Because this issue will required expert valuation testimony the bifurcation order will be granted.

[4]                 The defendant argues that the Associate Senior Prothonotary:

i)           Erred in ordering at a case management conference bifurcation of the issue of damages in the absence of a notice of motion.

ii)          Exceeded his jurisdiction in making a bifurcation order in a case involving a claim for over one million dollars when a prothonotary does not have jurisdiction to hear the trial of the action.

iii)          Erred in ordering issues of liability and damages to be determined separately.

[5]                 With respect to the absence of a notice of motion, Rule 47 provides that unless otherwise provided in the rules the discretionary powers of the Court may be exercised by the Court on its own motion. Court is defined in Rule 2 to include a prothonotary acting within the jurisdiction conferred under the rules. Rule 107(1) allows the Court at any time to order that issues in a proceeding be determined separately. Rule 107 does not provide that such power is to be exercised only on motion.

[6]                 I am satisfied therefore that the Associate Senior Prothonotary did not err in law in ordering bifurcation in the absence of the notice of motion. Counsel for the defendant confirmed during oral argument that the defendant did know that the issue would be raised at the case management conference in that the plaintiff was seeking the defendant's consent to bifurcation.

[7]                 As for the jurisdiction of a prothonotary to make a bifurcation order in the context of case management, the defendant relies upon Rule 383 to argue that where the amount claimed by a party exceeds $50,000.00 a prothonotary may only assist in the management of the proceeding and in that circumstance lacks jurisdiction to pronounce a bifurcation order.

[8]                 The relevant rules are Rules 383, 385(1) and 50 which, respectively, provide as follows:

50. (1) A prothonotary may hear, and make any necessary orders relating to, any motion under these Rules other than a motion (a) in respect of which these Rules or an Act of Parliament has expressly conferred jurisdiction on a judge; (b) in the Court of Appeal; (c) for summary judgment in a proceeding other than an action referred to in subsection (2); (d) to hold a person in contempt at a hearing referred to in paragraph 467(1)(a); (e) for an injunction; (f) relating to the liberty of a person; (g) to stay, set aside or vary an order of a judge, other than an order made under paragraph 385(a), (b) or (c); (h) to stay execution of an order of a judge; (i) to appoint a receiver; (j) for an interim order under section 18.2 of the Act; or (k) to appeal the findings of a referee under rule 163. Actions not over $50,000 50(2) A prothonotary may hear an action exclusively for monetary relief, or an action in rem claiming monetary relief, in which no amount claimed by a party exceeds $50,000 exclusive of interest and costs. [...] 383. The Chief Justice may assign (a) one or more judges to act as a case management judge in a proceeding; (b) a prothonotary to act as a case management judge in a proceeding referred to in subsection 50(2); or(c) a prothonotary to assist in the management of a proceeding in the Trial Division other than a proceeding referred to in subsection 50(2). [...] 385. (1) A case management judge or a prothonotary assigned under paragraph 383(c) shall deal with all matters that arise prior to the trial or hearing of a specially managed proceeding and may (a) give any directions that are necessary for the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits; (b) notwithstanding any period provided for in these Rules, fix the period for completion of subsequent steps in the proceeding; (c) fix and conduct any dispute resolution or pre-trial conferences that he or she considers necessary; and (d) subject to subsection 50(1), hear and determine all motions arising prior to the assignment of a hearing date.		50. (1) Le protonotaire peut entendre toute requête présentée en vertu des présentes règles -- à l'exception des requêtes suivantes -- et rendre les ordonnances nécessaires s'y rapportant : a) une requête pour laquelle un juge a compétence expresse en vertu des présentes règles ou d'une loi fédérale; b) une requête devant la Cour d'appel; c) une requête pour obtenir un jugement sommaire dans une instance autre que celle visée au paragraphe (2); d) une requête pour obtenir une condamnation pour outrage au tribunal à la suite d'une citation pour comparaître ordonnée en vertu de l'alinéa 467(1)a); e) une requête pour obtenir une injonction; f) une requête concernant la mise en liberté ou l'incarcération d'une personne; g) une requête pour annuler ou modifier l'ordonnance d'un juge ou pour y surseoir, sauf celle rendue aux termes des alinéas 385a), b) ou c); h) une requête pour surseoir à l'exécution de l'ordonnance d'un juge; i) une requête visant la nomination d'un séquestre judiciaire; j) une requête pour obtenir des mesures provisoires en vertu de l'article 18.2 de la Loi; k) une requête pour en appeler des conclusions du rapport d'un arbitre visée à la règle 163. Actions d'au plus 50 000_$ 50(2) Le protonotaire peut entendre toute action visant exclusivement une réparation pécuniaire ou toute action réelle visant en outre une réparation pécuniaire dans lesquelles chaque réclamation s'élève à au plus 50 000_$, à l'exclusion des intérêts et des dépens. [...] 383. Le juge en chef peut : a) affecter un ou plusieurs juges à titre de juge responsable de la gestion d'une instance; b) affecter un protonotaire à titre de juge responsable de la gestion d'une instance dans le cas d'une instance qui est de son ressort selon le paragraphe 50(2); c) affecter un protonotaire pour aider à la gestion de l'instance, dans le cas d'une instance qui n'est pas de son ressort selon le paragraphe 50(2). [...] 385. (1) Le juge responsable de la gestion de l'instance ou le protonotaire visé à l'alinéa 383c) tranche toutes les questions qui sont soulevées avant l'instruction de l'instance à gestion spéciale et peut : a) donner toute directive nécessaire pour permettre d'apporter une solution au litige qui soit juste et la plus expéditive et économique possible; b) sans égard aux délais prévus par les présentes règles, fixer les délais applicables aux mesures à entreprendre subséquemment dans l'instance; c) organiser et tenir les conférences de règlement des litiges et les conférences préparatoires à l'instruction qu'il estime nécessaires; d) sous réserve du paragraphe 50(1), entendre les requêtes présentées avant que la date d'instruction soit fixée et statuer sur celles-ci.

[9]                 Rule 385(1)(a) provides that a prothonotary assigned under rule 383(c) to assist in the management of a proceeding where more than $50,000.00 is at issue may give any directions that are necessary for the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of a proceeding on its merits. This is precisely what severance of an issue is designed to do.

[10]            Accordingly, even where a prothonotary has been designated to assist in the management of a proceeding pursuant to Rule 383(c) I am satisfied that pursuant to Rule 385(1) the prothonotary has ample jurisdiction to pronounce a bifurcation order whether or not the underlying proceeding is one referred to in Rule 50(2).

[11]            This conclusion is further supported by the fact that bifurcation orders are not enumerated in Rule 50(1) which limits the jurisdiction of a prothonotary.

[12]            I am satisfied therefore that the Associate Senior Prothonotary acted within his jurisdiction in making the bifurcation order.

[13]            As for whether the Associate Senior Prothonotary err in making the order, it is important to consider the standard of review on appeals under Rule 51 where the order under review was made in the context of case management.

[14]            In Sawridge Band v. Canada, 2001 FCA 338; [2001] F.C.J. No. 1684 the Court of Appeal wrote, at paragraph 11:

We would take this opportunity to state the position of this Court on appeals from orders of case management judges. Case management judges must be given latitude to manage cases. This Court will interfere only in the clearest case of a misuse of judicial discretion.

[15]            In Microfibres Inc. v. Annabel Canada Inc., 2001 FCT 1336; [2001] F.C.J. No. 1824 Justice Gibson concluded that those comments should apply by analogy to the discretionary decisions of a prothonotary made in the course of case management of complex matters. I agree and respectfully adopt the reasons given by Justice Gibson.

[16]            To those reasons I would only add that the term "case management judge" is defined in the rules to include both a judge assigned under Rule 383(a) and a prothonotary assigned under Rule 383(b). Given that the definition of a "case management judge" includes both judges and prothonotaries, and given that the powers given by Rule 385(1) to a prothonotary assisting in the management of a proceeding are the same as those given to a "case management judge" I can find no meaningful basis upon which to conclude that the standard of review applied to bifurcation orders made in case management proceedings varies depending upon whether the order was made by a prothonotary or by a judge.

[17]            As for the merits of the decision under appeal, questions of whether issues should be severed at trial exemplify the type of issue decided by case management officers. Those officers exercise their discretion informed by their familiarity with the proceeding which they are managing.

[18]            The defendant has not shown that the order of the Associate Senior Prothonotary was based upon either a wrong principal or a misapprehension of all of the facts sufficient to constitute a demonstrably clear misuse of judicial discretion.

[19]            The Associate Senior Prothonotary noted that expert evidence would be required on the issue of damages. It was open to him to conclude that a trial limited in the first instance to the determination of the existence of any liability would be more likely to result in a just, expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits.

[20]            In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The plaintiffs are entitled to the costs of this motion in the cause, to be assessed in usual course.

ORDER

[21]            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.          The appeal from the order of the Associate Senior Prothonotary dated October 16, 2001 is dismissed.

2.          The plaintiffs are entitled to the costs of this motion in the cause, to be assessed in usual course.

"Eleanor R. Dawson"

                                                                                                                                                    Judge