Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 NOVEMBER 2014

Does Agreement Between Counsel Prohibit The Application Of The 'Drop-Dead' Rule: Charik Custom Homes Ltd. V Sara Development Inc.

In Charik Custom Homes Ltd. v Sara Development Inc., Master Robertson of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench added another layer of interpretation to the "drop-dead" rule.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In Charik Custom Homes Ltd. v Sara Development Inc., Master Robertson of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench added another layer of interpretation to the "drop-dead" rule. Specifically, the question posed to the Court was whether a request made for time to defend a claim, and agreed to by the plaintiff, can defeat an application to dismiss for long delay under the "drop-dead" rule. The "drop-dead" rule is found at 4.33(1):

4.33(1) If 3 or more years has passed without a significant advance in an action, the Court, on application, must dismiss the action as against the applicant, unless

  1. the parties to the application expressly agreed to the delay,
  2. the action has been stayed or adjourned by order, an order has extended the time for advancing the action, or the delay is provided for in a litigation plan,

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from