Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

    


Date: 19981112


Docket: T-739-92

    

BETWEEN:

     MICHAEL W. SQUIRE

     Plaintiff

     - and -

    

     CHARLTON INTERNATIONAL INC.

     and DISTICOR

         Defendants

     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

GILES A.S.P.:

[1]      The matter before me is a status review. The plaintiff has been ordered to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed. In this review it is not intended that there be an exchange of evidence. It is for the plaintiff to indicate that there is some reason for the action not having proceeded to trial, and for me to determine if it should be allowed to continue.

[2]      I note that the rule is not solely intended to clear out the backlog of cases, but will continue in existence in the future and will then apply to comparatively short time periods of 6 months or 360 days. It is not contemplated that there will be evidence submitted nor oral argument heard. Therefore, it is not, in my view, intended to be the equivalent of a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution but brought by the Court.

[3]      The same rule applies where there is substantial delay as to those where the delay is but 360 days, and in my view the same test should be applied. I do not intend to require the plaintiff to respond as he would have to had a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution been filed with evidence and the possibility of cross-examination.

[4]      In my view it is sufficient for the plaintiff to give an acceptable reason for the delay and show that the matter should continue. (Should a defendant be prejudiced the defendant can bring a motion under Rule 167 in the ordinary way.) If the Court is satisfied that the proceeding should be allowed to continue it will continue under case management.

[5]      I am satisfied that the proceeding should continue.     

    

    

     ORDER

     It is ordered that this proceeding continue as a specially managed proceeding.

     It is further ordered that a settlement hearing under Rule 257 be held within two weeks and that discoveries be commenced before December 15, 1998.

                         "Peter A.K. Giles"

                                 A.S.P.

TORONTO, ONTARIO

November 12, 1998

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                      T-739-92

STYLE OF CAUSE:                  MICHAEL W. SQUIRE

                         - and -

                         CHARLTON INTERNATIONAL INC.

                         and DISTICOR

CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO UNDER THE PROVISION OF RULE 369.

REASONS FOR ORDER AND

ORDER BY:                      GILES, A.S.P.

DATED:                      THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1998

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          Macera & Jarzyna

                         Barristers & Solicitors

                         1200 - 81 Metcalfe St.

                         Ottawa, Ontario
                         K1P 6K7

                             For the Plaintiff

                         Lang Michener

                         Barristers & Solicitors

                         BCE Place

                         P.O. Box 747

                         Suite 2500

                         181 Bay Street

                         Toronto, Ontario

                         M5J 2T7

    

                             For the Defendants

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19981112

                        

         Docket: T-739-92

                         Between:

                         MICHAEL W. SQUIRE

     Plaintiff

                         - and -

                         CHARLTON INTERNATIONAL INC.

                         and DISTICOR

                        

                    

     Defendants

                    

                        

            

                         REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER                                                             

    

                        

                        

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.