Date: 19991007
Docket: T-2210-98
BETWEEN:
YAGODA MIHAILOVA
Appellant
- and -
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
and BORDEN & ELLIOT
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
GILES, A.S.P.:
[1] In the motion before me the applicant seeks reconsideration of an order of mine dismissing her application as the result of a status review. The applicant commenced the proceeding and filed her evidence together at the end of November, 1998. After the commencement of an application there is a time-table set by the Rules of Court which would require the applicant to seek a trial date within 130 days at the maximum. By the time an appearance was filed, there were some 110 days left within which to complete the steps set out in the Rules of Court. During those days nothing appeared to have been done.
[2] The Rules also provide that if no application for a hearing date is made within 180 days a notice of status review may be sent. Status review could, and in this case did, result in the proceedings being dismissed for delay. The applicant is now seeking reconsideration of my order dismissing the action. Rule 397 deals with reconsideration. It reads:
| 397. (1) Within 10 days after the making of an order, or within such other time as the Court may allow, a party may serve and file a notice of motion to request that the Court, as constituted at the time the order was made, reconsider its terms on the ground that (a) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it; or (b) a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted. |
397. (1) Dans les 10 jours après qu'une ordonnance a été rendue ou dans tout autre délai accordé par la Cour, une partie peut signifier et déposer un avis de requête demandant à la Cour qui a rendu l'ordonnance, telle qu'elle était constituée à ce moment, d'en examiner de nouveau les termes, mais seulement pour l'une ou l'autre des raisons suivantes : a) l'ordonnance ne concorde pas avec les motifs qui, le cas échéant, ont été donnés pour la justifier; b) une question qui aurait dû être traitée a été oubliée ou omise involontairement. |
| (2) Clerical mistakes, errors or omissions in an order may at any time be corrected by the Court. |
(2) Les fautes de transcription, les erreurs et les omissions contenues dans les ordonnances peuvent être corrigées à tout moment par la Cour. |
[3] I would be prepared to extend the time for bringing the motion were there any chance of being able to fit the facts within the provisions of Rule 397. The only matter raised by the applicant was the fact she had informed the Court that she was going to be away for a month, and was in fact away for longer. It is not open to a party to unilaterally extend Court time limits. She could have moved the Court for an extension, but did not do so.
[4] The order did not fail to accord with the reasons. Nothing appears to have been overlooked or accidentally omitted, nor does there appear to be a clerical mistake of any consequence. There are, therefore, no grounds on which I could reconsider my order.
[5] The motion for reconsideration is therefore dismissed.
"Peter A.K. Giles"
A.S.P.
TORONTO, ONTARIO
October 7, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: T-2210-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: YAGODA MIHAILOVA |
| - and - |
| THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS |
| and BORDEN & ELLIOT |
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369.
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: GILES A.S.P. |
| DATED: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1999 |
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Yagoda Mihailova
For the Appellant
Gordon J. Zimmerman
For the Respondent
Borden & Elliot
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Yagoda Mihailova
Suite #212, 88 Erskine Ave.,
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1Y3
| For the Appellant |
Borden & Elliot
Barristers and Solicitors
Scotia Plaza
40 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 3Y4
For the Respondent
Borden & Elliot
| Solicitors of Record cont"d... Morris Rosenberg |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
Registrar of Trade Marks
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:19991007
Docket: T-2210-98
Between:
| YAGODA MIHAILOVA |
Appellant
- and -
| THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS |
| and BORDEN & ELLIOT |
Respondents
| REASONS FOR ORDER |
AND ORDER