But it was an Accident?
What you should know about delay and Notice of Status Reviews in
plaintiff side litigation in the Federal Court of Canada.
If your work requires that you pursue claims in the
Federal Court of Canada, there are some things you should know about
being a plaintiff, delay and Status Reviews.
At the beginning of August, the Federal Court issued
another decision, in Narsimhalu v. Air Canada  F.C.J.
No. 1243, showing the seriousness of Notice of Status Reviews in
the Federal Court. The specific facts of the case are largely irrelevant,
but the court's message is plain: If you do not pursue your client's
Federal Court Claim, the Federal Court of Canada will dismiss your
New Federal Court Rules came into effect on April
25, 1998 creating a scheme of case management. As part of this scheme,
Status Reviews were created. In the past five years, the Federal
Court of Canada has taken a decidedly firm stance with its application
of Status Reviews. This is in contrast to the view many Provincial
Courts have towards typical dismissals for delay and status reviews.
Initially thought of as a mere "reminder"
from the Court, or a "slap on the wrist" to move a matter
along, the Federal Court has made it quite clear that Status Reviews
potentially carry a Draconian consequence. Inexplicable delay or
a lack of concrete proposals to move a delayed matter along will
result in a plaintiff's claim being dismissed. Prejudice is not
required and a claim may be dismissed without any effort whatsoever
from the defendant.
Typically in motions to dismiss for delay, the courts
are reluctant to extinguish a litigant's chance for a day in court
based on delay. Usually an unexplained passage of years coupled
with real evidence of prejudice is necessary for an action to be
dismissed for delay. Further, it is incumbent upon the defendant
to initiate the motion to dismiss for delay. Typically, a court
will not do this motion on its own initiative. A lax attitude by
the defendant moving party will usually affect a court's decision
to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for delay. Needless to say, motions
to dismiss for delay in Ontario courts are very rarely granted to
a defendant. These motions are typically not used to dismiss an
action but are used as a tool to pressure the defaulting plaintiff
to proceed with its litigation.
The Ontario Superior Court also has a status review
provision. Rule 48.14 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that if a statement of defence has been filed and the action has
not been placed on a trial list or terminated within two years after
the filing of a statement of defence, the registrar shall serve
a status notice that the action will be dismissed for delay. Despite
the delay, the action will not be dismissed if within the 90 days,
the action has been set down for trial or if a court orders otherwise.
All of these actions serve as a "wake up"
call to plaintiffs. If counsel moves quickly enough, a dismissal
is easily avoided if there is no prejudice to the other side. The
Federal Court's Notice of Status Reviews are much different.
The Court's decision to dismiss a plaintiff's action,
on its own unilateral initiative, has been upheld in the Federal
Court of Appeal on various occasions. In fact, an appeal upholding
a Trial Division Court's decision to dismiss under a Status Review
was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on various grounds.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not interfere with the decision.
It denied the appeal with costs and without reasons. (see Importations
Alimentaires Stella Inc. v. National Cheese (F.C.A.) 
F.C.J. No. 1816 affirming  F.C.J. No. 834 which affirms 
F.C.J. No. 702; and Rosen v. Canada  F.C.J. No. 415
(F.C.A.), para. 5, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused  S.C.C.A.
A Notice of Status Review is a single page notice
sent by the Court to Plaintiff's counsel. It is sent where 180 days
have passed since the issuance of the statement of claim without
a close of pleadings, or 360 days have elapsed without a requisition
for a pre-trial conference. In this notice, the Court requests that
the Plaintiff submit written representations to "show cause"
why the proceeding should not be dismissed for delay. If the Court
is not satisfied that the proceeding should continue, it will dismiss
the action for delay. The defendant is then afforded an opportunity
to make its own written submissions on the matter in rebuttal to
the Plaintiff's Reply. If the Court is satisfied that the proceeding
should continue, it will order that it continue as a specially managed
In analyzing a Reply to a Notice of Status Review,
the Court will analyze two questions:
1. Do the reasons why the case has not moved forward justify the
2. What is the nature of the measures the party proposes to take
to move the case forward?
"The two questions are clearly inter-related
in that if there is a good excuse for the case not having progressed
more quickly, the Court is not likely to be very exigent in requiring
an action plan from the plaintiff. On the other hand, if no good
reason is advanced to justify the delay, the plaintiff should be
prepared to demonstrate that he recognizes that he has a responsibility
to the Court to move his action along. Mere declarations of good
intent and of the desire to proceed are clearly not enough. Likewise,
the fact that the defendant may have been lax and may not have fulfilled
all his procedural obligations is largely irrelevant: primary responsibility
for the carriage of a case normally rests with a plaintiff and at
a status review the Court will look to him for explanations."
The Court must address both the reasons for delay
and the plan for moving the matter forward. The Plaintiff must present
the Court with "concrete and positive" steps to advance
If a court does dismiss a Plaintiff's case on Notice
of Status Reviews, the Plaintiff may move to:
1) have the Court reconsider its order; and/or
2) appeal the Order.
As discussed above, the Federal Court of Appeal has
refused appeals or motions to set these dismissal orders aside.
This newsletter is published to keep our clients and friends informed
of new and important legal developments. It is intended for information
purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should not
act or fail to act on anything based on any of the material contained
herein without first consulting with a lawyer. The reading, sending
or receiving of information from or via the newsletter does not
create a lawyer-client relationship. Unless otherwise noted, all
content on this newsletter (the "Content") including images,
illustrations, designs, icons, photographs, and written and other
materials are copyrights, trade-marks and/or other intellectual
properties owned, controlled or licensed by Fernandes Hearn LLP.
The Content may not be otherwise used, reproduced, broadcast, published,or
retransmitted without the prior written permission of Fernandes