In this case, the Court addressed an Application brought by the Plaintiff for advice and directions after repeated delays caused by the Defendants’ failure to advance the Action. The parties had previously agreed, by way of a Consent Order, that Questioning would be completed and the Action would then transfer to the Alberta Court of Justice for Trial. The Plaintiff had completed Questioning in late 2024 and provided responses to Undertakings in January 2025. Despite the Plaintiff’s repeated attempts since then to move the matter forward as agreed, the Defendants did not respond.

When the Plaintiff sought directions from the Court, the Defendants claimed, for the first time, that further Questioning was still needed because the Plaintiff’s Undertaking responses were allegedly deficient and that staffing changes had delayed their file management. Justice Jeffrey noted that the Defendants had failed to communicate any of this in the months following the Plaintiff’s responses, and found that the Plaintiff’s expectation that Questioning had concluded was reasonable. The Court concluded that the Defendants’ approach was contrary to the foundational Rules, the agreement between the parties, and the Consent Order, and found the delays to be deliberate or at least unjustified.

However, Jeffrey J. also held that Questioning could not technically be considered complete if there were legitimate follow-up questions on the Undertaking responses. Balancing these facts, the Court directed that the Defendants could serve any written follow-up questions within one week, with the Plaintiff to respond within thirty days and provide an attestation under oath. The Court further ordered that, regardless of whether any follow-up occurs, the parties must transfer the Action to the Court of Justice and set it for Trial in accordance with the Consent Order.

To address the wasted time and additional steps required, the Court stated its intention to award the Plaintiff enhanced Costs for the contested Application under Rules 10.31 to 10.33, subject to any further submissions from the Defendants. The Court directed that if Costs were awarded, they must be paid by the Defendants by a fixed deadline. If payment was not made, the matter would not transfer but would remain in the Court of King’s Bench for a further hearing at which the Defendants would be required to show cause why their defence should not be struck.