Rule Details
RK v GSG, 2026 ABKB 594
Rules Discussed
- Rule 1.2 Purpose and intention of these rules
- Rule 1.4 Procedural orders
- Rule 4.14 Authority of case management judge
- Rule 8.20 Application for dismissal at close of plaintiff’s case
- Rule 9.15 Setting aside, varying and discharging judgments and orders
Case Summary
The Plaintiff applied to prohibit two Defendants’ Summary Dismissal Applications after they failed, for a second time, to comply with deadlines in a Case Management Order. The Defendants cross-applied to vary the Order.
Rules 1.2 and 1.4 required timely, cost-effective litigation and a proportionate remedy. Pursuant to Rule 4.14, the Court could make procedural Orders necessary for the fair and efficient resolution of the Action. Rule 9.15(4) also permitted variation of the interlocutory Order on grounds the Court considered just.
The Court found that the deadline was unambiguous, the Defendants had taken no steps toward compliance, and their conduct reflected deliberate avoidance rather than inattention. Their explanations did not justify the delay or their failure to seek a variance before the deadline.
Justice Mah held that further delay would prejudice the parties, a young non-party witness, and the administration of justice. The Court commented that “it is important to dispel the idea that Court-imposed deadlines are optional”. Prohibiting the Applications remained proportionate because the Defendants could advance their defences at Trial and seek a non-suit pursuant to Rule 8.20.
The Court prohibited the Summary Dismissal Applications, denied the cross-Applications to vary the Case Management Order, and awarded the Plaintiff costs in the cause, to be determined after Trial.