TRI CITY CANADA v CANADA (PUBLIC WORKS)

When previously granting a scheduling Order on this matter, Applications Judge Prowse included a clause that required counsel for the Plaintiff to respond to counsel for the Defendants in a fulsome manner within one week. Belated responses from Plaintiff’s counsel had impeded the litigation from progressing in a timely and cost-effective fashion, resulting in Court-ordered Questioning dates being missed, and further unnecessary Court appearances.

Citing Rule 1.2, Applications Judge Prowse noted that the Court has discretion under Rule 1.4 to implement procedural Orders that oblige the Parties to communicate in a timely way, and to resolve disputes in a timely and cost-effective way.