Symbol Yachts Ltd. v. Pearson
T-1117-89
Hargrave P.
16/10/95
6 pp.
Action begun in May 1989-Defence filed in July 1989-June 1985 motion for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed, but plaintiffs ordered to appoint lawyer by August 8, to file and serve affidavit of documents by August 23, with completion of examination for discovery by November 21-Order peremptory, mandatory-Plaintiffs attempting to file affidavit of documents over one month late-(1) No jurisdiction to refuse to proceed with motion on basis peremptory, mandatory order precluding any further extension of time in all circumstances-Canadian National Railway Co. v. The Norango, [1976] 2 F.C. 264 (C.A.) holding judges not having power to fetter discretion given by R. 3(1)(c)-Court having power to extend time where "unless" order made, but not complied with, but power should be exercised cautiously and with due regard to necessity for maintaining principle order made to be complied with and not ignored: Samuels v. Linzi Dresses Ltd., [1981] Q.B. 115 (C.A.)-(2) Plaintiffs not demonstrating sufficient reason for extension-That solicitor on vacation not valid excuse: Chin v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 69 F.T.R. 77 (F.C.T.D.)-Affidavit disclosing neither when plaintiff's list provided to counsel nor what steps taken to expedite production of documents-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 3(1)(c).