Federal Court Recognizes Broad Discretion of Case Management Prothonotaries
Varco Canada Limited v. Pason Systems Corp. 2009 FC 538 (Gibson, J.)

May 22, 2009

Peter R. Wilcox and Justin G. Necpal for the Plaintiff, Varco Canada Limited
Peter W. Choe and James Blonde for the Defendant, Pason Systems Corp.

In this case, the Court dismissed an appeal from the decision of Prothonotary Milczynski dismissing the Defendant’s motion for bifurcation of liability from the quantum of damages under Rule 107 of the Federal Court Rules.

The Defendant argued that the Amended Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff after the first round of examinations for discovery significantly increased the complexity of the action and claim for damages, triggering the need for bifurcation. The Plaintiff argued that the Amended Statement of Claim merely clarify the scope of the action.

The Court considered the standard of review of the Prothonotary’s decision and would only interfere with the decision if it was ‘clearly wrong’ and a clear case of misuse of judicial discretion as it was not vital to the final issue of the case and the Prothonotary was case managing the proceeding.

The Court held that no errors were made by the Prothonotary. The Prothonotary preferred the submissions of the plaintiff and did not consider a “speculative allegation” of equitable conduct in a related file. He went on to hold that the Prothonotary’s conclusion that bifurcation of liability and damages would do little to narrow the scope of discovery for trial was reasonably open to her.

The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered costs in any event of the cause saying that where the likelihood of success has been minimal, appeals should be discouraged by costs orders.

By: Alan Macek, Dimock Stratton LLP