Nordholm I/S v. Canada
T-1215-89
Gibson J.
9/2/96
4 pp.
In judgment in main case, rendered January 8, 1996, reasons stated there would be no order as to costs in view of both parties' conduct leading up to collision between Nordpol and Kootenay-Application by plaintiff for order pursuant to RR. 337(5) and 344 reflecting reconsideration of terms of pronouncement respecting costs-Plaintiff alleging matters respecting issue of costs have been overlooked or accidentally omitted-In Stuart v. Can., [1989] 5 W.W.R. 163 (F.C.T.D.), Trial Judge therein stated R. 344(7) intended to allow for giving of directions within context of award of costs already made but not alteration of award itself-As nothing overlooked or accidentally omitted, no jurisdiction to reconsider judgment with respect to costs-Matter for appeal-Even if reconsideration permitted, conclusion would have been same-Application dismissed, no order as to costs-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 337(5), 344.