Fluid Energy Group Ltd. v. Mud Master Drilling Fluid Services Ltd.

Fluid Energy Group Ltd. v. Mud Master Drilling Fluid Services Ltd.

The motion for reconsideration was dismissed because the Court had properly considered and set aside the Prothonotary's Order in its entirety on appeal; when an order is appealed seeking it be set aside the whole order is under consideration and no clerical omission existed that would permit reconsideration under Rule 369/397(2).

Citation
2020 FC 480
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: FLUID ENERGY GROUP LTD.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: MUD MASTER DRILLING FLUID SERVICES LTD.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: HEARTLAND ENERGY GROUP LTD. (Seychelles); Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: HEARTLAND ENERGY GROUP LTD. (Nevada); Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: ALCHEM DRILLING FLUID SERVICE LTD.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Prothonotary Order; Motion to Reconsider Under Federal Courts Rules / Post‑appeal Reconsideration Motion (rule 369)
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Reconsideration, Clerical Mistake/correction, Costs Awards, Counsel's Eyes Only Designation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeals Costs Confidentiality and Disclosure Reconsideration Clerical Mistake/correction Costs Awards Counsel's Eyes Only Designation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FLUID ENERGY GROUP LTD.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

MUD MASTER DRILLING FLUID SERVICES LTD.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

HEARTLAND ENERGY GROUP LTD. (Seychelles)

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

HEARTLAND ENERGY GROUP LTD. (Nevada)

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

ALCHEM DRILLING FLUID SERVICE LTD.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Prothonotary Order; Motion to Reconsider Under Federal Courts Rules / Post‑appeal Reconsideration Motion (rule 369)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court overlooked that the costs portion of the Prothonotary's Order was not appealed
  2. 2 Whether reconsideration under Rule 369/Rule 397(2) was available to correct an alleged clerical mistake or omission in the Appeal Order
  3. 3 Whether the Appeal Order properly set aside the Prothonotary's Order in its entirety including the costs component

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for reconsideration was dismissed because the Court had properly considered and set aside the Prothonotary's Order in its entirety on appeal; when an order is appealed seeking it be set aside the whole order is under consideration and no clerical omission existed that would permit reconsideration under Rule 369/397(2).

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to its costs of this motion