Mark Laschuk

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to prevent their action from being administratively dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14.

The plaintiffs argued that the delay was caused by their former counsel's failure to advance the claim.

The court reviewed the timeline of the litigation and found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate explanation for 38.5 months of delay, representing over 45% of the total time since the action commenced.

Balancing the interests of the parties, the court concluded that the excessive unexplained delay warranted dismissal, even without proof of actual prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs' motion was dismissed, and the action was dismissed for delay.

The court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs argued that the delay was due to their former counsel and the conduct of the defendants, and that they always intended to prosecute the action.

The court refrained from deciding the motion, directing that the former counsel be served with the motion materials and given an opportunity to respond, as the allegations against him could affect his interests and the fairness of the process.

The applicants, holding approximately nine percent of the units of First Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, requisitioned a special meeting to replace four trustees.

The board scheduled the meeting for May 16, 2023, five months after the requisition.

The applicants sought an order compelling the meeting to be held earlier.

The court found that the board's decision to delay the meeting was not deserving of deference, as the justifications provided—cost savings, allowing a business plan to unfold, and providing more time for unitholder consideration—were not compelling and prejudiced the requisitioning unitholders.

The application was granted, and the trust was ordered to hold the meeting as soon as practicable after March 1, 2023.

The moving party, Telus Communications Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Perell J. dated January 12, 2021 and August 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.