Stephen Bryan William Chisholm

The plaintiff moved under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing the action as abandoned and to restore the action.

The proceeding had been commenced by notice of action but no statement of claim was filed within the required 30 days and the notice of action had been served without the statement of claim contrary to Rule 14.03.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the extensive delay, including a two‑year delay after learning of the dismissal order before bringing the motion.

Applying the factors governing restoration of dismissed actions, the court found inadequate explanation of delay, insufficient evidence of inadvertence, and failure to bring the motion promptly.

The request to add individual police officers as defendants was also barred by the limitation period.

The plaintiff commenced an action against a paving company for breach of contract regarding defective pavement.

Years later, the plaintiff discovered a concealed engineering report revealing that the original design specifications provided by an engineering firm were deficient.

The plaintiff successfully moved to add the engineering firm as a defendant.

The engineering firm appealed, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the discoverability rule applies to the 12-month limitation period under s. 46(1) of the former Professional Engineers Act, meaning the limitation period did not begin until the plaintiff discovered the report.

The respondent moved to quash an appeal and a motion for leave to appeal from an order granting interim relief in an oppression action under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory, meaning leave to appeal was required.

The Court further held that under s. 249 of the CBCA, appeals from interlocutory orders lie to the Court of Appeal, not the Divisional Court.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted, but the motion to quash the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.