Background:
Kevin Haynes appealed a Federal Court order dismissing his motion for reconsideration regarding a Level III grievance decision by his employer. The initial judgment granted the respondent’s request to quash the decision and remit it for reconsideration. Haynes argued he was not given the opportunity to present his draft order, which should have included additional relief and costs.

Key Issues:

1. Did the Federal Court err in dismissing Haynes' motion under Rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules?
2. Was Haynes entitled to seek additional relief, including costs, after the respondent’s draft order was accepted without his consent?

Court's Analysis and Decision:

• Reconsideration Request: The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court's application of Rule 397, which allows reconsideration only in limited circumstances. Since Haynes did not initially request costs, there was no basis for reconsideration.
• Procedural Fairness: The Court acknowledged potential unfairness in not allowing Haynes to respond to the respondent's motion but concluded this did not affect the case’s merits as the costs issue had been considered.
• Costs: The appeal was dismissed. The Court found no error in the Federal Court’s decision not to award costs due to insufficient evidence supporting Haynes' claim.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded to either party. The Attorney General of Canada (the respondent) was the successful party. No monetary awards, costs, or damages were granted by the Court.