Wenham v. Canada (Attorney General)
- Citation
- 2020 FC 762
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 14 July 2020
- Posture
- Class Proceeding / Amending Order (fee Approval)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 14 July 2020
- Posture
- Class Proceeding / Amending Order (fee Approval)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court amended the prior order by adding paragraph 4 because the omission was inadvertent, it was always the Court's intention to include the provision, and no party would be prejudiced by the amendment.
Court disposition
Paragraph 4 added to the Order in Wenham v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 589.
Orders
- Class Counsel shall pay amounts received in respect of a Class Member under the CTSSP within 30 days of receipt minus the amounts then due to Class Counsel under this Order in respect of the Class Member.
02
Material facts
Parties
Bruce Wenham
ApplicantAttorney General of Canada
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Class Proceeding / Amending Order (fee Approval)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether an omitted paragraph should be added to a prior order
- 02
Whether the amendment prejudices any party
- 03
Whether Class Counsel must pay amounts received under the CTSSP within a specified period
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought an amendment to the Order in Wenham v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 589 to add paragraph 4 requiring Class Counsel to pay amounts received in respect of a Class Member under the CTSSP within 30 days of receipt minus amounts then due to Class Counsel.
- Respondent
- Respondent did not oppose the amendment and the Court found that the omission was inadvertent and that no party would be prejudiced by adding the provision.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Federal Court inherent jurisdiction and practice
Court may amend its orders to correct inadvertent omissions or clerical errors
- 02
Federal Court practice
Amendments to orders are permissible where they do not prejudice the parties
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court amended the prior order by adding paragraph 4 because the omission was inadvertent, it was always the Court's intention to include the provision, and no party would be prejudiced by the amendment.
Court disposition
Paragraph 4 added to the Order in Wenham v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 589.
- Class Counsel shall pay amounts received in respect of a Class Member under the CTSSP within 30 days of receipt minus the amounts then due to Class Counsel under this Order in respect of the Class Member.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 14 July 2020
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 14 July 2020
Wenham v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-07-14 Neutral citation 2020 FC 762 File numbers T-1499-16 Decision Content Date: 20200714 Docket: T-1499-16 Citation: 2020 FC 762 Ottawa, Ontario, July 14, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
CLASS PROCEEDING BETWEEN:
BRUCE WENHAM Applicant and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent
AMENDING ORDER (Fee Approval) WHEREAS paragraph 4 of the Order in Wenham v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 589, was inadvertently omitted in the final version issued; AND WHEREAS it was always the Court’s intention to include this provision; AND WHEREAS no party to the Order is prejudiced by this amendment; THIS COURT ORDERS that paragraph 4 is added to the Order of Wenham v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 589, as follows: 4. Class Counsel shall pay amounts received in respect of a Class Member under the CTSSP within 30 days of receipt minus the amounts then due to Class Counsel under this Order in respect of the Class Member. Blank “Michael L. Phelan” Blank Judge
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.