Larden v. Canada
T-245-86
Hargrave P.
1/4/98
21 pp.
Claim by plaintiff to share of father's estate-Defendants arguing action commenced over dozen years ago, ought to be dismissed for want of prosecution-Estate said to have been settled by written agreement among heirs in 1990-After unsuccessful negotiations, plaintiff commenced action on January 30, 1986-Rule for dismissing for want of prosecution requiring defendant to show inordinate delay, inordinate delay inexcusable, defendant likely to be seriously prejudiced by delay-Inordinate delay herein-Plaintiff has not shown acceptable excuse for delay, particularly between January 1988, when various defendants failed to have action struck out for want of prosecution and April 1996, when Court called upon plaintiff to bring notice for directions-No serious prejudice suffered by defendants-Doubtful whether plaintiff had intention of proceeding to trial until awakened from sleep of seven years by Court's notice to seek directions or risk having action struck out-Where litigant engages in disregard of time limits in Rules, such breach should be considered not only from point of view of prejudice to particular litigants, but also in light of prejudice to due administration of justice-Issue raised as caution to counsel when cases managed under new 1998 Rules, which contain specific procedural time limits-Alternatively defendants asking that action be struck out under R. 419 as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or as abuse of process of Court-Frivolous plea so palpably bad no real argument required to convince Court, indicative of bad faith-Plaintiff, by lack of action between 1989 and 1996, appeared to have been content with disposition of estate for seven years-1990 agreement providing complete answer to action set out in statement of claim-Action, as drafted, clearly frivolous, vexatious, abuse of Court's process as could not lead to practical result, but continuously dragging defendants through long, expensive litigation for no possible benefit-Plaintiff's statement of claim struck out as frivolous, vexatious, abuse of process of Court, without leave to amend-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 419-Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106.