Date: 20000205
Docket: T-77-98
Ottawa, Ontario, the 5th day of January, 2000
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pelletier
BETWEEN :
HUMPTY DUMPTY FOODS LIMITED
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER and ORDER
[1] In this action, the Plaintiff appeals a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal with respect to their claim for a refund of federal sales tax. The Statement of Claim was filed January 16, 1998 and the Statement of Defence was filed March 19, 1998. The matter lay dormant until May 27, 1999 when a notice of status review was issued. Counsel for Humpty Dumpty wrote to Registry on June 28, 1999 advising that his clients had decided to seek new counsel and asking that no further steps be taken until counsel was retained. For reasons unknown, this letter did not find its way to the right file and on July 21, 1999, I signed an order dismissing the claim for failure to respond to the notice of status review. The letter of June 28, 1999 was drawn to my attention and on October 27, 1999 I signed another order rescinding my order of July 21, 1999 and extending the time for responding to the notice of status review to December 15, 1999.
[2] On December 14, 1999 newly appointed counsel filed a Notice of Change of Solicitors dated that day as well as writing to the Court to advise that he had been appointed on December 10, 1999 and had therefore not had the opportunity to review the file. He requested a further extension of time till February 2, 2000 to respond to the Notice of Status Review.
[3] The plaintiff has known since June 28, 1999 at the very latest that it would be appointing new counsel and that the Notice of Status Review required a response. In spite of that, it did not appoint counsel until December 10, 1999 with the result that counsel is not in a position to respond to the Notice of Status Review in the time provided in my order. The plaintiff"s failure to deal with this matter in a reasonable time frame is unexplained. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that this claim ought to be continued.
ORDER
WHEREAS Notice of Status Review was sent to the plaintiffs in the care of their counsel on or about May 27, 1999; and
WHEREAS counsel advised on June 28, 1999 that new counsel would be appointed and requested an extension of time to respond to the Notice of Status review; and
WHEREAS by order dated October 27, 1999, the plaintiff was granted until December 15, 1999 to appoint counsel and to respond to the Notice of Status Review; and
WHEREAS the plaintiff did not appoint counsel until December 10, 1999 and is therefore not in a position to respond to the Notice of Status Review as ordered; and
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff"s claim is dismissed for delay.
Judge
Email this Content