Abbott et al. v. Canada, (2000) 188 F.T.R. 198 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 16, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 188 F.T.R. 198 (TD)

Abbott v. Can. (2000), 188 F.T.R. 198 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.002

Allison G. Abbott, Margaret Abbott and Margaret Elizabeth McIntosh (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty The Queen (defendant) and Canadian Pacific Hotels Corporation (intervenor)

(T-1168-96)

Indexed As: Abbott et al. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

March 29, 2000.

Summary:

Individuals who leased park property for private cottages and recreational use brought a class action against the government regarding their leases. The individual plaintiffs moved for an extension of time to file a reply and to be able to refer to that reply on a pending question of law. The essence of the reply was estoppel.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the motion.

Practice - Topic 1704

Pleadings - Reply and subsequent pleadings - Extension of time for filing - Individuals who leased park property sued the Crown - The Crown filed its defence in June, 1998 - No reply was filed - The plaintiffs moved for an extension of time to file a reply, which would contain an estoppel argument against the Crown - The need for the reply became apparent during or on the completion of examinations for discovery (September, 1998 and November, 1999) - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the motion - The plaintiffs intended to rely on the estoppel argument during the discovery phase - This intent was not abandoned - There was a delay in not bringing the estoppel argument and some prejudice to the Crown - However, a liberal approach was necessary to do justice between the parties - Any prejudice could be compensated in costs.

Cases Noticed:

Eaton v. Storer (1883), 22 Ch.D. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Grewal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 2 F.C. 263; 63 N.R. 106 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Beilin et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1995), 88 F.T.R. 132 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Council of Canadians et al. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act et al. (1997), 212 N.R. 254 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Council of Canadians et al. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act et al. (1997), 124 F.T.R. 269 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Costellow v. Somerset County Council, [1993] 1 W.L.R. 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Canada v. Walker (1970), 11 D.L.R.(3d) 173 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Valyenegro v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1995), 88 F.T.R. 196 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

University of Saskatchewan v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1975 et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 830; 22 N.R. 314, refd to. [para. 21].

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Ferguson v. Arctic Transportation Ltd. et al. (1997), 118 F.T.R. 154 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Counsel:

Arthur J. Stacey, for the plaintiff;

Paul Edwards, for the defendant;

Judson E. Virtue, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the plaintiff;

Duboff, Edwards, Haight & Schachter, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the defendant;

Mcleod Dixon, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervenor.

This motion was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 16, 2000, by Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on March 29, 2000.