BREWER ESTATE v BREWER

The Applicant submitted a Desk Order for substitutional service on the Respondent. The Applicant submitted a proposed Order, a supporting Affidavit, and a document entitled "Desk Application for Substitutional Service without Notice Application" which stated that the Court should consider the uploaded Order and Affidavit. The Applicant did not file an Application that complied with Rule 6.3(2), which sets out the requirements for an Application.

Notwithstanding the absence of an Application, the supporting Affidavit made it clear that the request for substitutional service was made under Rule 11.28. Nevertheless, the Court refused to grant the request for substitutional service without a filed Application as this was a requirement of Rule 11.28. The Court also denied the request because the Applicant failed to show that service was impractical. The Respondent was represented by counsel, and it was appropriate for documents to be served on the lawyer, including this Application. That the lawyer had been unresponsive did not warrant substitutional service and there was no evidence of withdrawal by the lawyer. Further, service was not impractical simply because the hearing date was nearing.