By Ian Carruthers and Noel Harper
DISCLAIMER: This blog is intended to inform the reader about how the law was applied in a particular case. It should not be taken as advice regarding the outcome of any other case, even one that may have similar facts. The Court’s decision will depend on the facts of each case. Please call 1-844-210-9511 or visit carrutherslaw.ca if you would like to know more about your specific case.
Throughout October, In This Case will be exploring Rule 4.31, which states that the court can dismiss an action for delay at any time in instances where significant prejudice is demonstrated. Our first case on this topic involves a couple who ended their relationship and the dispute that followed. Below are the key facts and events that took place:
The common law relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was terminated after 20 years. In October 2011, the plaintiff brought an action for “unjust enrichment and spousal support,” per the case’s decision. The defendant filed a subsequent statement of defence in June 2012.
Both parties conducted questionings in June 2014. The plaintiff provided answers to undertakings on March 26, 2015, and the defendant did so on June 17. A consent order was granted regarding the list price of the residence they shared on July 8.
Various correspondence was shared between the parties during the period of July 2015 and April 2018, including the provision of updated financial information. On May 4, 2018, the plaintiff’s counsel served a notice to disclose, and also sought various other relief. The defendant filed his response affidavit on May 31.
The court dismissed a portion of the relief measures sought by the plaintiff on June 6, 2018. The following day, the defendant was served with an appointment and conduct money to examine him regarding his undertakings. His response to the May 4 notice to disclose was filed on June 11, and the plaintiff’s affidavit of records was provided on June 15. She also submitted two expert reports on June 26.
On July 18, the defendant applied to dismiss the action under either Rule 4.31 or Rule 4.33. The application was heard on August 18.
Come back on Friday for the solution and a brief explanation of the case in question.