TALISMAN ENERGY CANADA v DIRECT ENERGY MARKETING LIMITED (CENTRICA ENERGY), 2015 ABQB 13
1.4: Procedural orders
7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)
13.5: Variation of time periods
The Defendants sought an Order from the Court extending the time for filing their Statement of Defence until after their Summary Dismissal Application had been heard and determined. The Court considered whether the Defendant should be obliged to file a Statement of Defence prior to the hearing of the Summary Dismissal Application if the Plaintiff insists on receiving a Statement of Defence.
Master Prowse noted that, while the predecessor to Rule 7.3 specifically addressed the need to file a Statement of Defence prior to applying for Summary Dismissal, Rule 7.3 does not contain any such requirement. Master Prowse noted further that generally, when a party seeks Summary Judgment, it is appropriate to hold off following normal pre-trial steps in the litigation. Pursuant to Rule 1.4(2)(h) and Rule 13.5(2)(a), the Court has authority to extend the time for a Defendant to file a Statement of Defence.
After reviewing the facts and addressing the concerns raised by each of the parties, Master Prowse directed that the Defendants file their Summary Dismissal Application on or before January 30, 2015, but that they were not required to file a Statement of Defence until after that Application had been determined.View CanLII Details