Date: 20000817
Docket: T-570-95
BETWEEN:
DEAN BUCK
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
HUGESSEN J.
[1] At a pre-trial conference held in December 1997 at the request of counsel for the plaintiff, the Court scheduled a trial date in October, 1998 and a dispute resolution conference. The latter , originally fixed for February 1998 was later adjourned to May 28, 1998. Neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared for that session and the latter was unavailable at any telephone number known to the Court. In the absence of both the lawyer and client, the Court ordered that the trial proceed as originally scheduled in October 1998.
[2] On September 25, 1998 Richard J., as he then was, on application of defendant and on consent of Ms. Codina, now acting on behalf of plaintiff as the former solicitor, was unable to appear, adjourned the trial on terms, including a term requiring that a new pre-trial conference be held on December, 17, 1998. It does not appear from the Court file if any of the terms set by Richard J. were complied with, but the pre-trial conference was adjourned peremptorily by Wetston J. on December 17, 1998, apparently to allow Ms. Codina to apply to be removed as solicitor of record.
[3] Nothing further appears to have happened until over a year later when on January 18, 2000, the plaintiff wrote to the Regestry complaining that although a Requisition had been filed, no trial date had been set. This communication was referred to me and on February 22, 2000, I directed that no trial date would be set until a new Requisition for a pre-trial conference had been filed.
[4] On March 3, 2000, a notice of change of solicitors was filed by which the solicitor who had originally represented the plaintiff and had failed to appear as indicated above in 1998 replaced Ms. Codina.
[5] No further action having been taken on the file, on June 28, 2000, I issued an order for the plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. In response thereto, plaintiff's solicitor filed written representations on July 28, 2000 in which he asserts that plaintiff is ready, willing and able to proceed and that the Court should fix a date for trial.
[6] The required requisition for a pre-trial conference has still not been filed. The submissions omit completely any mention of the plaintiff's several failures to move this matter forward or to respect the timetables established by the Court. They contain a number of assertions as to actions taken by plaintiff and his present solicitor for which there is no support in the record and no evidence by affidavit or otherwise. The plain fact is that the plaintiff has not respected any deadline set by the Court and has been alone responsible for the significant delays which have occurred since the first pre-trial conference in 1997. No proper explanation is offered. The Court has already wasted significant time and public resources on the plaintiff's case without the latter showing any genuine resolution to bring the matter on for trial.
[7] The action should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
ORDER
The action is dismissed.
"James K. Hugessen"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
August 17, 2000
Email this Content