T-2975-75
The Queen (Plaintiff)
v.
Rose Hélène Aubé (née Lanteigne) (Defendant)
Trial Division, Mahoney J.—Ottawa, February 6,
1981.
Practice — Ex parse motion by plaintiff seeking renewal of
writ of execution under Rule 2006 — Whether plaintiff
required to give other party notice of intention to proceed after
year's delay, pursuant to Rule 331A Application to renew
granted Express provision of Rule 2006(2) to be given effect
over general provision of Rule 331A — Federal Court Rules
331A, 2006(1),(2).
MOTION in writing pursuant to Rule 324.
COUNSEL:
Allison Ross Pringle for plaintiff.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
plaintiff.
The following are the reasons for order ren
dered in English by
MAHONEY J.: This is an ex parte motion by the
plaintiff, presented in writing without appearance
under Rule 324, to renew a writ of execution under
Rule 2006. Such an application is not subject to
the requirement of Rule 331A that notice be given
the other party of the intention to proceed if a year
or more has passed since the last proceeding in a
matter.
Rule 2006(1) provides that a writ of execution is
valid for five years. Rule 2006(2) provides that, if
not wholly executed, the writ may be extended for
a further five years "if an application for extension
is made to the Court before the writ would other
wise expire". The express provision of Rule
2006(2) that contemplates the application for
renewal may be made as long as five years less a
day after the issue of the writ is to be given effect
over the general provision of Rule 331A.
ORDER
The application is granted.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.