Recent amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure should greatly
reduce the number of administrative dismissals of Actions.
Effective January 1, 2015, an Action which is not set down for
trial or otherwise disposed of within five years of its
commencement will automatically be dismissed. This is in stark
contrast with the current regime, whereby such an Action will
generally be dismissed two years after its commencement, unless the
parties agree to and file a Timetable with the Court, or the
Plaintiff shows cause at a Status Hearings as to why it should not
be dismissed. The changes are subject to some
"grandfathering" provisions. For instances, Status
Hearings booked, but not heard, before January 1, 2015, will
continue to be governed by the current Rules.
The changes are a partial return to our past, when it was left
to the parties to police how quickly an Action was advanced.
Parties are, of course, still free to bring Motions seeking to
dismiss Actions for want of prosecution relying upon common law
It is expected that the change will free up (already scarce)
judicial resources to deal with matters on their merits, and avoid
the waste caused by appearances at Status Hearings (especially
first appearances, where Timetable Orders are typically granted as
a matter of course).
Ironically, by allowing actions to linger longer in the system,
they will likely be heard faster and at less expense, as judicial
resources consequently become liberated to hear matters on their
merits, as opposed to being bogged-down in time consuming,
expensive, and counter-productive "show cause"
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).