Strayer
J.A.:-On
May
31,
1993
the
plaintiffs
commenced
this
action.
On
application
of
the
first-named
respondents
(hereafter
referred
to
as
"the
Crown")
the
associate
senior
prothonotary
on
July
19,
1993
struck
out
the
statement
of
claim
as
disclosing
no
cause
of
action.
Rothstein
J.
dismissed
an
appeal
from
this
decision
on
August
31,
1993.
The
plaintiffs
then
filed
an
appeal
from
the
decision
of
Rothstein
J.
on
September
13,
1993,
becoming
appellants
in
the
present
proceeding
in
this
Court.
On
March
25,
1994
the
registry
sent
the
appeal
book
to
the
parties.
By
Rule
1208(1)
the
appellants
were
obliged
within
three
weeks
of
receiving
the
appeal
book
to
file
and
serve
a
memorandum
of
fact
and
law.
It
is
not
in
dispute
that
the
appellants
have
never
provided
such
a
memorandum.
On
November
23,
1994,
counsel
for
the
Crown
acting
in
conformity
to
Rule
1209(2)
sent
a
letter
to
the
appellants
giving
them
at
least
ten
days’
notice
that
she
would
be
applying
under
Rule
1209(1)
for
dismissal
of
the
appeal
because
of
the
appellants’
delay.
The
appellants
took
no
steps
either
to
perfect
the
appeal
or
to
ask
for
an
extension
of
time.
The
Crown’s
motion
for
dismissal
was
filed
on
December
15,
1994.
The
matter
came
on
for
hearing
before
us
on
May
24,
1995,
the
appellants
never
having
taken
the
step
required
by
Rule
1209(3)
to
oppose
such
a
motion,
namely
by
filing
an
affidavit
explaining
what
steps
have
been
taken
to
get
the
appeal
ready
for
hearing.
Mr.
Giagnocavo,
appearing
for
himself,
argued
instead
that
this
appeal
should
be
consolidated
with
certain
other
proceedings
in
the
Court,
no
proper
motion
ever
having
been
made
to
this
effect.
In
view
of
the
appellants’
failure
to
comply
with
the
rules
of
the
Court
without
any
proper
justification
or
explanation,
the
appeal
must
be
dismissed.
The
respondent
Crown
is
entitled
to
costs
throughout.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content