HOURIE-PEEBLES v DINOSAUR TRAIL GOLF, 2024 ABKB 324
FUNK J
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
4.31: Application to deal with delay
4.33: Dismissal for long delay
6.14: Appeal from master’s judgment or order
Case Summary
This was an Appeal from a procedural Order by Applications Judge Park under Rule 4.31. Martha May Hourie-Peebles, injured by a golf ball at Dinosaur Trail Golf & Country Club, faced potential dismissal of her claim due to procedural delays.
Applications Judge Park, despite confirming the criteria of Rule 4.31 were met due to significant delays and resulting prejudice to the Defendant, opted for a procedural Order instead of dismissal, aiming to move the case towards trial. The Defendant's Appeal centered on whether this Decision aligned with the foundational principles of Rule 1.2, ensuring timely and cost-effective resolution of claims.
Justice Funk, in the Appeal under Rule 6.14(3), focused on whether compelling reasons existed to maintain the Action despite the significant delays. Justice Funk highlighted that under Rule 4.31(2), the inordinate and inexcusable delay led to presumed significant prejudice against the Defendant, which the Plaintiff failed to rebut.
The Appeal also touched on considerations from Rule 4.33 about dismissals for undue delays affecting the integrity of the Judicial process, emphasizing that the passage of time significantly disadvantaged the Defendant in preparing a defence, directly impacting the Action’s fairness and efficacy.
Concluding that no compelling reasons justified overriding the significant prejudice to the Defendant, Justice Funk allowed the Appeal, dismissed the procedural Order, and terminated the Plaintiff's Action under Rule 4.31.
View CanLII Details