Federal Court Interprets New Rules Regarding Dismissal Of Proceeding For Undue Delay



FEDERALCOURTINTERPRETSNEWRULESREGARDINGDISMISSALOF
PROCEEDINGSFORUNDUEDELAY

By
BarryGamache
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
Canada’snewFederalCourtRules,1998(S.O.R./98-106)cameintoforceon
April25,1998.OneoftheimportantchangesforCanadianattorneyswho
practicebeforetheFederalCourthasbeenthestatusreviewimplementedby
Rule380.StatusreviewattheCourt’sinitiativeisaimedatcaseswhichhave
been”suspended”or”onhold”foracertainperiodoftime.Thus,whereinan
action,180dayshaveelapsedsincetheissuanceoftheStatementofClaimand
pleadingsarenotclosed,or360dayshaveelapsedsincetheissuanceofthe
StatementofClaimandnopartyhasfiledarequisitionforapre-trialconference,
theCourtshallfixatimeanddateforastatusreview.UnderRule382(2),ata
statusreview,theCourtmayrequireaplaintifftoshowcausewhythe
proceedingshouldnotbedismissedfordelayand,ifitisnotsatisfiedthatthe
proceedingshouldcontinue,dismisstheproceeding.
Atthispoint,itistooearlytodeterminehowtheCourtwillinterpretitsownnew
Rulesregardingstatusreview.
However,theCourthashadtointerpretnewRule167followinganapplication
foranorderbyadefendantdismissingaplaintiff’sactiononthegroundsthat
therehadbeenunduedelaybytheplaintiffinprosecutingsame(Rugglesv.
FordingCoalLimited,T-1948-95,August18,1998(Gibson,J.)).Rule167provides
thattheCourtmay,atanytime,onthemotionofapartywhoisnotindefaultof
anyrequirementoftheRules,dismissaproceedingorimposeothersanctionson
thegroundthattherehasbeenunduedelaybyplaintiffinprosecutingthe
proceeding.
ReviewingDefendantFordingCoalLimited’smotionforanorderdismissing
Plaintiff’saction,Mr.JusticeGibsonconsideredthesuit’shistory:Statementof
claimfiledonSeptember15,1995;Statementofdefenceandcounterclaimfiled
onOctober25,1995;ReplyanddefencetocounterclaimfiledonOctober30,
1995.Nothingthereafteroccurredforayearandahalf.Anoticeofchangeof



theplaintiff’ssolicitorswasfiledinAugustof1997.Inearly1998affidavitof
documentswerefiledbyeachpartyand,sinceApril1998,plaintiff’ssolicitorhad
attemptedtomakearrangementsforexaminationsfordiscoveryofthe
defendant.
Mr.JusticeGibsonremindedthepartiesthatanapplicationsuchastheone
broughtbythedefendantwouldhavebeenmade,beforeApril25,1998,under
formerRule140ofthepreviousFederalCourtRules(C.R.C.1978,c.663(as
amended)),onthebasisof”wantofprosecution”.QuotingMr.JusticeDubéin
Nicholsv.Canada(1990)36F.T.R.77,theCourtrecalledthetestfor”wantof
prosecution”asfollows:”Theclassictesttobeappliedinthesemattersis
threefold:first,whethertherehasbeeninordinatedelay;secondly,isthedelay
inexcusable;andthirdly,whetherthedefendantsarelikelytobeseriously
prejudicedbythedelay”.
Inarguingagainstdefendant’smotion,plaintiffarguedthatthe”classictest”
underformerRule140shouldcontinuetoapplyunderRule167andsubmitted
thatwhiletherehadbeenadelay,itwasnotinordinate;inthiscaseitwas
excusableonthebasisthatplaintifftwicefounditnecessarytochangesolicitors
andexperiencedgravepersonaldifficulties.Additionally,fromtheplaintiff’s
pointofview,therewasnoevidenceofseriousprejudicetothedefendants.
Obviously,defendantsubmittedthatthe”classictest”shouldnolongerberelied
uponastheconceptof”unduedelay”underthenewRulesandtheconceptof
“wantofprosecution”undertheformerRulesaretotallydifferent.
ConcludingthatthenewRulewasnotasignificantdeparturefromthe”classic
test”,Mr.JusticeGibsonwrote:”IamsatisfiedthatRule167ofthenewRules,by
adoptingtheterminologyof”unduedelay”,reflectsthe”classictest”.”Undue
delay”isnotunlike”inordinatedelay”butatthesametimeimpliesthroughthe
term”undue”theconceptofinexcusabledelaythatresultsinseriousprejudice”.
Whenconsideringthefactsofthismatter,theCourtconcludedthat”undue
delay”hadnotbeenestablished.
AlthoughnewRule380isasignificantdeparturefromthepracticeofthepast
(whereundertheformerRulesthedismissalcouldonlybeaskedbyapartyand
notbytheCourtpropriomotu),newRule167istobeinterpretedinlightofcase
lawundertheformerRules.
Publishedat(1998),12W.I.P.R.352-353underthetitleFederalCourtInterpretNew
RulesOnDismissalofActionforUndueDelay.
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,1998.





ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis
1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:
brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertification
etappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartiste
interprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiqueset
obtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,
publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantau
Canadaquailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsand
utilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-
how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,
distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationand
arbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD