Prothonotary
Hargrave:
A
Writ
of
Execution
was
issued
in
this
matter
for
November
1992.
Under
the
Rules
then
in
force
the
Writ
of
Execution
was
good,
in
the
first
instance,
for
five
years:
Rule
2006(1).
While
valid
the
writ
might
be
extended
from
time
to
time:
Rule
2006(2).
In
this
instance
the
Writ
of
Execution,
governed
by
the
old
Rules,
expired
4
November
1997.
Under
the
new
Rules
“A
Writ
of
Execution
is
valid
for
six
years
after
its
date
of
issuance.”
(Rule
437(1)).
On
motion
it
may,
while
valid,
be
extended
from
time
to
time,
for
further
periods
of
six
years:
Rule
437(2).
In
this
instance
the
Applicant/Judgment
Creditor
moves,
ex
parte,
as
is
allowed
by
Rule
436,
for
the
following
relief:
(a)
a
Declaration
that
a
Writ
of
Execution
may
be
dismissed
without
leave
of
the
Court
if
less
than
six
years
have
elapsed
since
judgment,
notwithstanding
that
a
writ
was
previously
issued
in
respect
of
the
judgment
but
has
expired;
(b)
in
the
alternative,
an
Order
granting
leave
to
the
Applicant
to
issuance
of
a
new
Writ
of
Execution
in
this
matter
and
that
such
Writ
be
directed
to
the
Sheriffs
of
British
Columbia
or
any
person
or
civil
enforcement
agency
appointed
to
act
as
Sheriff
pursuant
to
subsection
2(2)
of
the
Sheriff
Act,
R.S.B.C.
1996,
c.
425;
and
(c)
an
Order
relieving
the
Applicant
from
complying
with
the
record
format
requirement
set
out
in
Rule
364.
In
this
instance,
because
the
renewal
of
a
Writ
of
Execution
is
ex
parte
and
straight
forward,
it
is
reasonable
to
deal
with
the
application
without
a
formal
motion
record.
Here
I
note
that
the
relief
sought
is
clearly
set
out
in
the
motion
and
the
facts
are
concisely
dealt
with
in
a
short
affidavit.
Were
the
facts
or
the
argument
necessary
to
support
the
relief
sought
more
complex,
a
motion
record
would
be
in
order.
The
principle
relief
sought
by
the
Crown
is
a
Declaration
that
a
Writ
of
Execution
may
be
issued
without
leave
if
less
than
six
years
have
elapsed
since
judgment,
notwithstanding
that
a
writ
was
previously
issued,
but
has
expired
under
the
previous
five
year
rule.
The
fact
that
the
original
Writ
of
Execution
issued
had
a
five
year
life
and
expired
almost
a
year
ago
has
no
bearing
on
this
question.
Rule
434(1)
makes
it
clear
that
leave
of
the
Court
need
not
be
obtained
in
order
to
obtain
a
Writ
of
Execution
if
the
sixth
anniversary
of
the
date
of
the
Order
(or
in
this
instance
the
filed
tax
certificate),
upon
which
the
Writ
of
Execution
is
to
be
based,
has
not
run.
Thus,
in
this
instance,
the
Applicant/Judgment
Creditor
may
have
a
Writ
of
Execution,
as
a
right
and
without
application,
up
until
the
4th
of
November
1998.
Order
The
Applicant
may,
as
a
right
and
without
leave
of
the
Court,
obtain
a
Writ
of
Execution
based
on
the
tax
certificate
of
4
November
1992,
so
long
as
such
Writ
of
Execution
is
issued
on
or
before
4
November
1998.
Motion
granted.
Email this Content