More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence
FBI took 11 sets of classified material from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home while investigating possible Espionage Act violations (US)
Ontario class action settlement reclassifies volunteers as employees, setting new precedent
Availability of Judicial Review in SABS Disputes
Are masking policies still valid?
Justice Canada releases commission report on impact of lack of legal aid in family law disputes
Harmonized sales tax part of maximum amount of attendant care benefits owed by insurer: court
New rules coming next month to help Canadians with cancelled and delayed flights
Stephen King set to testify for govt in books merger trial (US)
New law program in Quebec to begin next fall, a first in 50 years
The Impact of the Lack of Legal Aid in Family Law Cases
SCC rules that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom but do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault.
Big Plastic suing feds over single-use ban — again
Tim Hortons offers coffee and doughnut as proposed settlement in class action lawsuit
The SCC has refused to hear the appeal to declare the renewal of the state of health emergency by the Quebec government invalid
Federal privacy commissioner investigating controversial ArriveCAN app
Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions (US)
Ontario court certifies class action on former patients’ anxiety from notice of risk of infection
The stakes couldn’t be higher as Canada’s top court decides whether to hear climate class action lawsuit
Professor Barnali Choudhury selected by EU as trade and sustainable development expert
The Supreme Court decision on the ‘Ghomeshi’ amendments will help sexual assault victims access justice
AFN Reaches $20 B Final Settlement Agreement to Compensate First Nations Children and Families

Civil lawsuit trial deadlines may be needed, appeal court says

Justice suggests current court rules are inadequate, after court hears routine civil cases are often taking five years or more to come to trial.

 


PHOTO: Justice Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten PHOTO BY ARLEN REDEKOP /PROVINCE

 
 

B.C.’s top court says it may be time to consider time limits for civil litigation similar to those imposed on criminal trials because a simple lawsuit is taking five years or more.

After knocking the stuffing out of a B.C. Supreme Court ruling, the high bench conceded the judge had a good point about the length of time the lawsuit had taken. But the appeal court nevertheless tossed out her decision because the delay did not meet the standard set by the court’s existing rules.

That threshold may be too high because it requires the delay to cause or be likely to cause serious prejudice to the defendant, the B.C. Court of Appeal said.

“The case involves relatively simple claims,” wrote Justice Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten for the three-justice panel.

Yet five years passed before the dismissal ruling, when a trial was still 18 months away.

“In submissions before this court, it was suggested that a delay of five years is not unusual in civil actions; it is not uncommon for parties to move at the pace seen here; and that to dismiss an action for want of prosecution after only five years would be extraordinary. If that is an accurate depiction of civil litigation practice in British Columbia, it may be time to revisit the legal test for dismissal.”

In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the absence of prejudice can no longer be used to justify delays in criminal trials. It set deadlines — 18 months for provincial courts and 30 months in superior courts.

“Timely justice is one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society,” the court said, and extended delays “undermine public confidence in the (legal) system.”

The nation’s top judges added Canadians “rightly expect a system that can deliver quality justice in a reasonably efficient and timely manner.”

“While those comments were made in the criminal law context, where timely justice takes on special significance, some of the underlying policy concerns, contextually informed, also resonate in the civil law realm,” said DeWitt-Van Oosten about the Vancouver Island dispute between neighbours over a copse of trees.

In 2016, Tyler Drennan alleged neighbour Darcy Smith retained a tree faller, Leo Pike, who trespassed on his property and cut down 23 trees, diminishing his home’s value by reducing its privacy and esthetic appeal.

After filing his claim, Drennan was unable to serve it. In December 2016, he retained a skip tracer to locate Smith and was finally able to serve him in June 2017.

Smith filed a defence two months later insisting Drennan gave him oral permission to cut down the trees in exchange for receiving free blast rock.

Drennan provided his list of documents in July 2018; Smith in November.

There were to be two witnesses — Pike and Phil Wilson, a contractor hired by Smith to transfer the rock but testifying for Drennan. Wilson said he was not aware of any agreement giving Smith permission to remove the trees. Smith was examined in April 2019.

Then, on Oct. 29, 2019, Pike died.

In March 2020, COVID‑19 disrupted courts at least until that September.

On April 1, 2021, Drennan obtained a trial date in January 2023, but Smith applied to have the suit dismissed, arguing Pike’s death and the time the litigation had already taken left him unable to get a fair trial because of faded memories.

His application was heard in June and Justice Catherine Murray dismissed the lawsuit a month later, finding the delay inexcusable: It was not deliberate or negligent, but Drennan had been “dilatory in proceeding with his case without having a good reason for doing so.”

From the judge’s perspective, the nature of the allegations attacked Smith’s character and there was “an onus on (Drennan) to proceed with expedition and diligence.”

Pike “likely would have provided key evidence corroborating Mr. Smith’s evidence and contradicting” the evidence of Wilson, Murray said.

As a result, the justice concluded the delay deprived Smith of “the best evidence available” and caused him “irreparable prejudice.”

The panel disagreed, saying she overestimated the relevance of Pike’s lost testimony.

“The bases on which this finding was made are not borne out by the record,” DeWitt-Van Oosten explained.

“The judge’s finding that Mr. Smith’s ‘memory has become unclear due to the passage of time’ appears to be largely predicated on his assertions to that effect during his examination for discovery. When those assertions are assessed in the context of the detail he was subsequently able to produce by way of affidavit, they lose their force.”

The appeal justices maintained Murray committed a “palpable and overriding error in her finding of serious prejudice.”

“Without evidence of serious prejudice, the balancing of interests did not support dismissal for want of prosecution in a case where, prior to April 2021, delay had not been raised as an issue or asserted as a basis for remedial relief,” DeWitt-Van Oosten said.

Still, if simple cases like this are taking this long, she pointed out, the current standard may have to be changed: The object of the court rules is “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits” and reformulating the test for dismissal may cause parties to speed up.

“We cannot do that here,” DeWitt-Van Oosten concluded. “We were not asked to reconsider the legal standard and doing so would require a five‑member division.”

imulgrew@postmedia.com

twitter.com/ianmulgrew

GOOGLE ADVERTISEMENT

 


PHOTO: Justice Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten PHOTO BY ARLEN REDEKOP /PROVINCE

 
 

B.C.’s top court says it may be time to consider time limits for civil litigation similar to those imposed on criminal trials because a simple lawsuit is taking five years or more.

After knocking the stuffing out of a B.C. Supreme Court ruling, the high bench conceded the judge had a good point about the length of time the lawsuit had taken. But the appeal court nevertheless tossed out her decision because the delay did not meet the standard set by the court’s existing rules.

That threshold may be too high because it requires the delay to cause or be likely to cause serious prejudice to the defendant, the B.C. Court of Appeal said.

“The case involves relatively simple claims,” wrote Justice Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten for the three-justice panel.

Yet five years passed before the dismissal ruling, when a trial was still 18 months away.

“In submissions before this court, it was suggested that a delay of five years is not unusual in civil actions; it is not uncommon for parties to move at the pace seen here; and that to dismiss an action for want of prosecution after only five years would be extraordinary. If that is an accurate depiction of civil litigation practice in British Columbia, it may be time to revisit the legal test for dismissal.”

In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the absence of prejudice can no longer be used to justify delays in criminal trials. It set deadlines — 18 months for provincial courts and 30 months in superior courts.

“Timely justice is one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society,” the court said, and extended delays “undermine public confidence in the (legal) system.”

The nation’s top judges added Canadians “rightly expect a system that can deliver quality justice in a reasonably efficient and timely manner.”

“While those comments were made in the criminal law context, where timely justice takes on special significance, some of the underlying policy concerns, contextually informed, also resonate in the civil law realm,” said DeWitt-Van Oosten about the Vancouver Island dispute between neighbours over a copse of trees.

In 2016, Tyler Drennan alleged neighbour Darcy Smith retained a tree faller, Leo Pike, who trespassed on his property and cut down 23 trees, diminishing his home’s value by reducing its privacy and esthetic appeal.

After filing his claim, Drennan was unable to serve it. In December 2016, he retained a skip tracer to locate Smith and was finally able to serve him in June 2017.

Smith filed a defence two months later insisting Drennan gave him oral permission to cut down the trees in exchange for receiving free blast rock.

Drennan provided his list of documents in July 2018; Smith in November.

There were to be two witnesses — Pike and Phil Wilson, a contractor hired by Smith to transfer the rock but testifying for Drennan. Wilson said he was not aware of any agreement giving Smith permission to remove the trees. Smith was examined in April 2019.

Then, on Oct. 29, 2019, Pike died.

In March 2020, COVID‑19 disrupted courts at least until that September.

On April 1, 2021, Drennan obtained a trial date in January 2023, but Smith applied to have the suit dismissed, arguing Pike’s death and the time the litigation had already taken left him unable to get a fair trial because of faded memories.

His application was heard in June and Justice Catherine Murray dismissed the lawsuit a month later, finding the delay inexcusable: It was not deliberate or negligent, but Drennan had been “dilatory in proceeding with his case without having a good reason for doing so.”

From the judge’s perspective, the nature of the allegations attacked Smith’s character and there was “an onus on (Drennan) to proceed with expedition and diligence.”

Pike “likely would have provided key evidence corroborating Mr. Smith’s evidence and contradicting” the evidence of Wilson, Murray said.

As a result, the justice concluded the delay deprived Smith of “the best evidence available” and caused him “irreparable prejudice.”

The panel disagreed, saying she overestimated the relevance of Pike’s lost testimony.

“The bases on which this finding was made are not borne out by the record,” DeWitt-Van Oosten explained.

“The judge’s finding that Mr. Smith’s ‘memory has become unclear due to the passage of time’ appears to be largely predicated on his assertions to that effect during his examination for discovery. When those assertions are assessed in the context of the detail he was subsequently able to produce by way of affidavit, they lose their force.”

The appeal justices maintained Murray committed a “palpable and overriding error in her finding of serious prejudice.”

“Without evidence of serious prejudice, the balancing of interests did not support dismissal for want of prosecution in a case where, prior to April 2021, delay had not been raised as an issue or asserted as a basis for remedial relief,” DeWitt-Van Oosten said.

Still, if simple cases like this are taking this long, she pointed out, the current standard may have to be changed: The object of the court rules is “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits” and reformulating the test for dismissal may cause parties to speed up.

“We cannot do that here,” DeWitt-Van Oosten concluded. “We were not asked to reconsider the legal standard and doing so would require a five‑member division.”

imulgrew@postmedia.com

twitter.com/ianmulgrew

Want direct access to the latest LITN content?

Stay in the loop ➞ Subscribe to LITN instant notifications.
Receive the latest content delivered directly to your device.
Unsubscribe at anytime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to LITN's Terms & Conditions.

Latest News

Subscribe

Join the LITN Newsletter ➞ the latest news delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe at any time.


GOOGLE ADVERTISEMENT

Instagram Feed