Rouleau
J.:
—
This
Applicant
came
before
the
Court
on
August
27,
1996,
seeking
an
extension
of
time
to
file
its
motion
record.
It
was
suggested
in
the
affidavit
material
in
support
of
the
application
for
extension
of
time
that
an
affidavit
of
one
Peter
Ling,
filed
on
June
5,
1996,
by
counsel
for
the
Respondent,
required
extensive
rebuttal
material
to
be
filed
by
way
of
a
reply
affidavit.
This
submission
was
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
motions’
judge
to
extend
the
time
for
filing
of
the
motion
record
of
the
Applicant;
he
extended
it
to
September
6,1996.
This
process
was
ultimately
consented
to
by
the
Respondent.
On
September
11,
1996,
the
Applicant
attempted
to
file
its
material
but
was
rejected
by
the
Registry
in
light
of
the
fact
that
the
order
granting
delay
to
September
6,
1996,
was
in
fact
being
breached.
On
September
23,
1996,
the
matter
once
again
came
before
this
Court
seeking
a
further
extension
of
time
and
it
was
again
suggested
that
the
issue
required
extensive
affidavit
evidence
in
rebuttal.
The
presiding
justice
adjourned
the
matter
to
September
30,
1996,
and
advised
counsel
for
the
Applicant
to
submit
further
affidavits
in
support
of
a
further
extension
of
time
to
file
the
motion
record.
The
matter
came
before
me
on
September
30,
1996.
The
material
submitted
by
the
Applicant
now
states
that
after
a
careful
review
of
the
Peter
Ling
affidavit
of
June
5,
1996:
When
I
undertook
Affidavit
preparation
on
the
morning
of
September
4th,
1996,
I
formed
the
opinion
that
the
areas
in
issue
were
collateral
and
not
relevant
to
the
outcome
and
so
informed
Mr.
Robertson.
We
then
agreed
to
dispense
with
preparation
of
rebuttal
material.
From
a
perusal
of
the
file
it
has
become
evident
to
me
that
the
different
counsel
in
the
Applicant’s
firm
were
involved.
There
is
apparently
no
cohesion
with
respect
to
the
handling
of
this
particular
matter.
When
it
came
before
me
the
firm
dispatched
a
different
member;
I
suspect
no
one
previously
involved
wanted
to
face
the
Court.
There
is
absolutely
no
justification
for
any
further
delay
being
granted
without
penalty.
I
am
nevertheless
satisfied
that
on
the
merits
the
motion
should
proceed
because
of
the
importance
of
the
issues
and
I
see
no
great
prejudice
to
the
Respondent.
The
Applicant
will
be
allowed
until
Friday,
October
4,
1996,
to
file
and
serve
its
motion
record
so
long
as
it
will
have
a
receipt
for
costs
paid
in
full
to
counsel
for
the
Respondent
in
the
amount
of
$2,000.
Motion
granted.
Email this Content