Raven v. Airdrie (City), [2012] A.R. Uned. 175
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Case Date | January 27, 2012 |
| Jurisdiction | Alberta |
| Citations | [2012] A.R. Uned. 175;[2012] A.R. Uned. 175 (QBM);2012 ABQB 74 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
6 practice notes
-
Mintage Financial Corp. v. Altenhofen et al., 2013 ABQB 486
...ER 543 (CA); Lethbridge Motors Co. v. American Motors (Can) Ltd. (1987) 53 Alta. L.R. (2d) Alta. CA) still applies: Raven v Airdrie (City) 2012 ABQB 74. However, it would be fair to say that the emphasis is now on prejudice. [27] Prejudice must be proved. It is not like old Rule 244(4), whe......
-
Regco Petroleums Ltd. v. Gerling Canada Insurance Co.,
...150, (1987), 53 Alta. LR (2d) 326 (Alta. C.A.); Ravvin Holdings Ltd. v Ghitter , 2008 ABCA 208, at paras 37, 38; Raven v, Airdrie (City) , 2012 ABQB 74, per Laycock, M. If there is inordinate and inexcusable delay, significant prejudice is now presumed (rule 4.31(2)). The Plaintiff argues t......
-
Franchuk v. Schick, [2013] A.R. Uned. 578 (QBM)
...of inordinate, inexcusable delay and serious prejudice still applies but the emphasis is now on prejudice. (See Raven v Airdrie (City), 2012 ABQB 74; Mintage Financial Corporation v Altenhofen , 2013 ABQB 486). [21] The Defendant points to the passage of time and lack of progress toward tri......
-
Total Image Interiors Inc. v Bentley Investments Ltd., 2017 ABPC 137
...is presumed to have resulted in significant prejudice to the party that brought the application. [12] As stated in Raven v Airdrie (City), 2012 ABQB 74, Rule 4.31 involves an inquiry into whether there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay, and significant prejudice. The delay itself ma......
Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
-
Mintage Financial Corp. v. Altenhofen et al., 2013 ABQB 486
...ER 543 (CA); Lethbridge Motors Co. v. American Motors (Can) Ltd. (1987) 53 Alta. L.R. (2d) Alta. CA) still applies: Raven v Airdrie (City) 2012 ABQB 74. However, it would be fair to say that the emphasis is now on prejudice. [27] Prejudice must be proved. It is not like old Rule 244(4), whe......
-
Regco Petroleums Ltd. v. Gerling Canada Insurance Co.,
...150, (1987), 53 Alta. LR (2d) 326 (Alta. C.A.); Ravvin Holdings Ltd. v Ghitter , 2008 ABCA 208, at paras 37, 38; Raven v, Airdrie (City) , 2012 ABQB 74, per Laycock, M. If there is inordinate and inexcusable delay, significant prejudice is now presumed (rule 4.31(2)). The Plaintiff argues t......
-
Franchuk v. Schick, [2013] A.R. Uned. 578 (QBM)
...of inordinate, inexcusable delay and serious prejudice still applies but the emphasis is now on prejudice. (See Raven v Airdrie (City), 2012 ABQB 74; Mintage Financial Corporation v Altenhofen , 2013 ABQB 486). [21] The Defendant points to the passage of time and lack of progress toward tri......
-
Total Image Interiors Inc. v Bentley Investments Ltd., 2017 ABPC 137
...is presumed to have resulted in significant prejudice to the party that brought the application. [12] As stated in Raven v Airdrie (City), 2012 ABQB 74, Rule 4.31 involves an inquiry into whether there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay, and significant prejudice. The delay itself ma......
Request a trial to view additional results