Teitelbaum,
J.
[Orally]:—Thank
you,
Mr.
Wolofsky.
I
think
I
am
ready
to
render
my
judgment.
As
is
usual
with
M
Wolofsky,
he
always
comes
out
with
very
interesting
arguments.
In
this
particular
case,
1,
with
all
due
respect,
do
not
agree
with
your
submissions,
M
Wolofsky.
First
of
all,
in
the
case
of
R.
v.
Aubé,
[1981]
2
F.C.
702,
and
this
is
found
in
Butterworths
on
our
rules.
It
says
that:
An
application
to
renew
a
writ.
.
.,
we
are
talking
about
writs
of
execution
in
terms
of
speaking
of
Quebec
civil
law
in
terms
of
execution.
It
says
that
a
writ—again,
it
is
the
fieri
facias
writ,
but
because
we
are
here
in
the
Province
of
Quebec,
we
will
speak
of
a
writ
of
execution.
An
application
to
renew
a
writ
may
be
made
at
any
time
after
five
(5)
years
less
one
(1)
day
after
the
issue
of
the
writ.
.
.
In
this
particular
case,
there
is
no
doubt
that
it
was
made
in
time.
.
.
.
and
may
be
made
ex
parte
without
notice
of
intention
to
proceed,
notwithstanding
that
more
than
one
(1)
year
has
passed
since
the
last
proceeding
in
the
matter.
In
this
particular
case,
much
more
than
one
(1)
year
has
passed.
And
notwithstanding
that,
it
may
be
made
ex
parte.
Furthermore,
I
agree
with
the
submission
of
counsel
for
the
respondent.
We
have
two
(2)
separate
proceedings.
There
is
a
debt
owing
by
the
defendant,
Manfred
Wolf.
And
a
writ
of
execution
or
writ
of
fieri
facias
was
obtained
properly,
and
that
writ
was
good
for
five
(5)
years.
After
the
issuance
of
the
writ,
the
respondent
did
what
it
thought
was
necessary
to
execute
the
writ.
The
debt
was
not
completely
satisfied.
Five
(5)
years
are
approaching,
and
because
of
Rule
2006,
the
writ
had
to
be
renewed.
I
agree
with
the
submission
of
counsel
for
the
opposant
that
it
is
not
automatic
that
the
writ
will
be
renewed.
When
the
word
"may"
is
used,
it
means
may.
There
may
be
reasons
for
not
renewing
the
writ
of
fieri
facias.
In
this
particular
case,
I
am
not
going
to
say
whether
the
writ
should
have
been
renewed
or
not,
because
that's
not
before
me.
The
attorney
representing
the
respondent
was
an
attorney
from
the
Ministry
of
Justice.
And
the
attorney
representing
the
respondent
in
the
renewal
was
also
an
attorney
for
the
Ministry
of
Justice.
There
did
not
have
to
be
a
change
of
solicitors
filed,
a
notice
of
change
of
solicitors
filed
into
the
record,
because
of
the
fact
that
there
was,
in
addition
or
parallel
with
the
writ
of
fieri
facias,
an
opposition
by
Mrs.
Wolf.
The
opposition
was
filed
by
Mrs.
Wolf,
which
was
her
legal
right
to
do.
And
that
part
of
the
proceedings,
that
proceeding,
was
contested
by
a
firm
of
attorneys
in
Montreal,
I
assume,
Leduc
LeBel.
I
am
also
satisfied
that
the
renewal
of
the
writ
of
fieri
facias
can
be
done
ex
parte
without
notice
to
the
opposant
in
this
particular
case.
The
evidence
in
front
of
me,
first
of
all,
does
not
disclose
any
prejudice
to
the
opposant.
Second
of
all,
what
could
the
opposant
have
said
at
the
renewal
hearing?
All
she
could
have
said
is
that,
well,
the
property
that
was
seized
in
Ste.
Thérèse,
does
not
belong
to
the
defendant,
but
belongs
to
me.
She
can
still
say
that,
if
she
can
prove
it
at
the
hearing
in
June
of
her
opposition.
Then,
the
property
will
oe
subtracted
from
what
was
seized,
and
will
belong
to
her,
if
she
can
prove
this.
There
is
absolutely
no
prejudice
caused
to
the
opposant
at
all,
by
not
having
been
given
notice
of
the
renewal,
nor
should
she
have
been
given
notice
of
the
renewal
insofar
as
I
am
concerned,
and
the
way
I
understand
the
rule.
I
can
go
on,
and
give
you
many
other
reasons
why
I
think
the
present
application
should
not
be
allowed,
but
I
don't
think
that
is
necessary.
Therefore,
the
application
is
denied.
The
costs
will
be
in
the
cause.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content