Buschau v. Rogers Communications Inc.

Buschau v. Rogers Communications Inc.

The Court of Appeal held the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to correct the entered order because the dollar figure did not reflect the court's manifest intention to award interest at the fund return; the error could be corrected either under the court's inherent jurisdiction to give effect to its manifest intention or by rectification for a common mistake. Accordingly the entered amount of $2,302,403.66 was replaced with $1,679,124 and the overpayment was ordered repaid to RCI.

Citation
2004 BCCA 142
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: Sandra Buschau; Respondent/plaintiff: Sharon M. Parent; Respondent/plaintiff: Albert Poy; Appellant/defendant: Rogers Communications Incorporated; Appellant/defendant: Rogers Cable T.V. Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: National Trust Company
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Post Judgment Applications to Vary/rectify a Supreme Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Rectification, Slip Rule (clerical Correction), Inherent Jurisdiction, Consent Orders, Prejudgment Interest, Mistake (common and Unilateral)
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Equity Trusts and Pensions Contract Law Rectification Slip Rule (clerical Correction) Inherent Jurisdiction Consent Orders +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Buschau

Respondent/plaintiff

Sharon M. Parent

Respondent/plaintiff

Albert Poy

Respondent/plaintiff

Rogers Communications Incorporated

Appellant/defendant

Rogers Cable T.V. Ltd.

Appellant/defendant

National Trust Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Post Judgment Applications to Vary/rectify a Supreme Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under the slip rule (R.41(24)) to correct an entered order that incorporated an incorrect actuarial calculation
  2. 2 Whether the court had inherent jurisdiction to amend an entered order that did not express the court's manifest intention
  3. 3 Whether the entered order was a consent order evidencing a contract or simply an order entered without objection

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to correct the entered order because the dollar figure did not reflect the court's manifest intention to award interest at the fund return; the error could be corrected either under the court's inherent jurisdiction to give effect to its manifest intention or by rectification for a common mistake. Accordingly the entered amount of $2,302,403.66 was replaced with $1,679,124 and the overpayment was ordered repaid to RCI.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order dated September 25, 1998 amended by replacing $2,302,403.66 with $1,679,124 in the paragraph awarding the balance to the RCI Pension Fund
  • Ordered repayment from the Premier Pension trust to Rogers Communications Incorporated of the overpaid amount (difference between the original and corrected sums plus interest as calculated)