Giles,
A.S.P.:—In
April
1989
I
ordered
Mr.
Giagnocavo
struck
from
the
claim
and
provided
time
within
which
Mrs.
Giagnocavo
might
file
an
amended
claim.
Notice
of
an
appeal
of
my
order
was
filed.
The
appeal
from
my
order
has
been
adjourned
from
time
to
time,
most
recently
sine
die.
Contemporaneously,
matters
have
been
proceeding
as
if
no
notice
of
appeal
had
ever
been
filed.
An
amended
claim
has
been
filed,
but
under
protest,
and
the
Crown
has
filed
a
defence.
The
Crown
has
now
moved
for
an
order
dismissing
the
action
for
want
of
prosecution.
I
considered
the
Crown's
motion
to
be
in
the
branch
of
the
case
which
was
proceeding
as
if
no
appeal
were
outstanding.
This
branch
cannot,
in
my
view,
proceed
further
until
the
appeal
has
been
dealt
with.
I
therefore
adjourned
the
motion
to
dismiss
until
December
7,
with
the
provision
that
this
motion
may
be
further
adjourned
without
personal
appearance
in
court
if
both
parties
file
letters
with
the
Registry
agreeing
to
such
further
adjournment
or
withdrawal
of
the
motion
before
the
close
of
business
on
Wednesday,
December
2.
It
was
my
view
that
in
the
meantime
the
appeal
of
my
order
of
April
18,
1989
could
be
reactivated.
If,
however,
it
is
not
reactivated
there
is
no
reason
that
that
branch
of
proceedings
could
not
also
be
dismissed
for
want
of
prosecution.
However,
it
is
not
appropriate
that
I
should
dismiss
an
appeal
of
my
own
order
for
want
of
prosecution.
It
would
be
inefficient
not
to
deal
with
both
branches
of
this
case
at
the
same
time
if
neither
is
being
actively
prosecuted.
I
am
therefore
directing
that
if
the
matter
comes
on
again
on
December
7
it
should
come
on
before
a
judge.
Mr.
Giagnocavo
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
the
defendant's
motion.
This
motion
which
recited
a
lot
of
the
plaintiff's
arguments
in
the
main
action
did
not
purport
to
be
filed
by
the
plaintiff
but
by
her
husband.
It
was
struck
for
that
reason,
although
had
it
been
filed
by
the
plaintiff
it
would
probably
have
been
struck
anyway
because
in
this
Court
one
may
file
affidavit
evidence
and
make
representations
to
respond
to
a
motion
but
a
countermotion
is
unnecessary
for
the
purpose
of
opposing
a
motion
of
the
other
side.
Order
accordingly.
Email this Content