BRANDT INDUSTRIES CANADA LTD v EVRAZ INC NA CANADA

The Court allowed an Application brought pursuant to Rule 9.14, which allows for the granting of a further Order if doing so does not vary the original Judgment.

Finding that it was not the award that was being challenged but rather the entitlement to interest under the agreement in dispute, and noting that the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim did not properly invoice under the agreement, Sidnell J. held that the interest should be calculated in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act.

On the issue of costs, Sidnell J. applied Rules 10.31 and 10.33, and outlined the relevant factors for consideration, including the result of the action, degree of success, amount claimed, amount recovered, and complexity of the action. Rule 10.33(2) allows the Court to consider additional factors when awarding costs, including settlement offers. Justice Sidnell found that the settlement offer made to the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim was invalid because it was unclear, imprecise, and uncertain. Accordingly, the fact that it was not accepted was reasonable in the circumstances. The Court declined to award double costs to the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim.

Sidnell J. awarded costs under Column 5 of Schedule C and determined it was appropriate and proportionate to award the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim double the amount set out in Column 5.