Canada v. Johnson, 2002 FCT 194

Date: 20020222

Docket: T-332-00

Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 194

Ottawa, Ontario, this 22^nd day of February 2002

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Plaintiff

- and -

DELTON JOHNSON

Defendant

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

PELLETIER J.

[1]    This is an application for an extension of time to serve the Statement of Claim in this matter. The transactions giving rise to the Claim occurred in 1993-1994. The Statement of Claim was issued on February 21, 2000. On July 28, 2000, Prothonotary Aronovitch extended the time for service of the Statement of Claim to August 28, 2000. In response to a Notice of Status Review dated November 21, 2000, the plaintiff requested a further extension of 60 days to serve the Statement of Claim. By order dated January 16, 2001, I granted the plaintiff an extension of 60 days to serve the Statement of Claim. On August 27, 2001, the Plaintiff requested a further extension of 30 days to serve the Statement of Claim.

[2]    The Plaintiff says that it attempted to serve the defendant by registered mail in March 2000 but the defendant did not pick up the envelope. In April 2000, the plaintiff hired a process server to serve the claim but he was unable to do so, though he did identify an address for the defendant. The defendant's mail address was at Medicine Hat Alberta; the new address was at Bow Island which appears to be approximately 50 kilometers or so from Medicine Hat. In August 2001, the Plaintiff once again attempted to serve the defendant by mail but had no success. I pause to note that the attempted service in August 2001 was well outside the 60 day extension granted in January 2001.

[3]    There is little sense in continuing to grant extensions of time for serving this claim. It simply produces deadlines which, for whatever reason, are not met. The reasons given for not effecting service do not explain the longs delays in taking action when extensions are granted. The Rules provide for validation of irregular service. If the plaintiff wishes to show that it is serious about pursuing this claim, it can locate and serve the defendant and then attempt to persuade the court to validate service, a task at which it may or may not succeed.

[4]                 It is for the plaintiff to decide how to proceed but on the basis of the record before me I can see little reason for extending the time for service of the Statement of Claim once again.

                                                  ORDER

The application for an extension of time to serve the Statement of Claim is dismissed.

        "J.D. Denis Pelletier"         

   Judge