TRAVIS v D & J OVERHEAD DOOR LTD, 2016 ABCA 319
WAKELING JA
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
1.5: Rule contravention, non-compliance and irregularities
4.31: Application to deal with delay
11.10: Service on limited partnerships
11.11: Service on partnerships other than limited partnerships
11.12: Service on individuals using another name
11.13: Service on a corporation using another name
11.14: Service on statutory and other entities
11.15: Service on person providing an address for service
11.16: Service on lawyer
11.17: Service on lawyer of record
11.18: Service on self-represented litigants
11.19: Service on business representatives of absent parties
11.20: Service of documents, other than commencement documents, in Alberta
11.21: Service by electronic method
11.27: Validating service
11.5: Service on individuals
11.6: Service on trustees and personal representatives
11.7: Service on litigation representatives
11.8: Missing persons
11.9: Service on corporations
13.4: Counting months and years
13.5: Variation of time periods
14.2: Application of general rules
14.7: How to start an appeal
14.8: Filing a notice of appeal
Case Summary
Pursuant to Rules 13.5(2)(a) and 14.2(1) the Applicant, Gordon Travis (“Travis”), applied for a six-month extension of the Notice Period set out in Rule 14.8 (2) within which to file a Notice of Appeal with respect to an Order which dismissed Travis’ Claim pursuant to Rule 4.31, on account of delay (the “Application”). Travis brought the Application about seven months after the Order was pronounced.
Wakeling J.A. held that Rules 1.2, 1.5, 13.5(2), 14.2, 14.7 and 14.8 were relevant in adjudicating the matter. Particularly, Justice Wakeling reinforced the importance of timely and cost-efficient resolution of disputes, holding that “[d]elay is not an attribute of justice” and that compliance with the Rules will achieve the desired goal. Wakeling J.A. held that “the obligation in r.14.8(2)(iii)… is much more important than r.13.5(2)(a)”, as the “Court must strictly enforce time lines to ensure that disputes are resolved in a timely way and to give credence to the principles of finality”.
After thorough consideration of the leading authorities, Wakeling J.A. examined Travis’ grounds for appeal. On one of these grounds, Travis argued that the Respondents did not properly effect email service of the Application which gave rise to the Order under appeal. Travis argued that the Respondents failed to comply with Rule 11.21(1) as there was no evidence of the necessary confirmation of email receipt pursuant to Rule 11.21(1)(b). Wakeling J.A. noted that had Travis’ counsel acknowledged to anyone that he was aware of the email’s existence at the time of receipt this would have activated and satisfied Rule 11.5(1)(a). Wakeling J.A. further noted that Rule 11.5(1)(a) through 11.20(a) provide that “service is effected if the document is ‘left with the individual’”. Ultimately, Justice Wakeling rejected Travis’ argument as Rule 11.27 allows a Court to validate service where the Court is satisfied that the document served was brought to the attention of the person served, which was likely to have occurred in the circumstances of this case.
Wakeling J.A. held that there were no “unique and special circumstances”, it was not “in the interests of justice”, and there was no reason to exercise the Court’s general discretion to grant Travis an extension of the deadline set out in Rule 14.8(2)(iii). The Application was dismissed.
View CanLII Details