PRACTICE |
Case Management |
Status Review |
Precision Drilling International, B.V. v. BBC Japan (The)
T-1943-02
2004 FC 701, Snider J.
14/5/04
10 pp.
Plaintiffs served with notice of status review, after nearly 360 days had passed since filing statement of claim in cargo claim case, indicating required to show cause why action should not be dismissed for delay--Plaintiffs' written representations stated matter had not proceeded because they were engaged in settlement discussions with charterers of vessel--Owners, stevedoring company objected to proposed suspension of matter as not apprised of discussions, not consenting to delay--Prothonotary ordered plaintiffs' action dismissed as failed to meet either aspect of test in Baroud v. Canada (1998), 160 F.T.R. 91 (F.C.T.D.)--Whether action should be dismissed for delay requiring Court to address two questions set out in Baroud: (1) what are reasons for, and whether justify, delay?; (2) what steps proposed to move matter forward?--Overarching concern should be whether plaintiffs recognize responsibility to move action along, and are taking steps to do so--Settlement negotiations with at least some of defendants offered as explanation for delay-- While focus on one set of defendants not excusing poor form in failing to communicate with other parties, approach not unreasonable--Reasons justify delay--In addition, delay relatively brief, i.e. only several months, not several years-- Request to "set this matter over for a few months to allow us the opportunity to finalize the arrangements" vague, but reasonable response at this stage of litigation--Plaintiffs demonstrated recognition of responsibility to move action along--Not appropriate to dismiss claim--Case to continue as specially managed proceeding.