PRACTICE |
Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. v. Mapleglen (The)
T-1315-02
2004 FC 1197, Hargrave P.
31/8/04
7 pp.
Claim involving short delivery of grain--Plaintiff now seeking to add receiving grain terminal as party--Motion to add party requiring adjournment of matter already set for trial--Adjournments considered only in most exceptional circumstances as set out in Practice Note No. 4, February 17, 1993--Rules under which practice direction issued dealt with adjournments in different terms than Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 36(1) which now permits adjournment from time to time on such terms as Court considering just--Federal Court of Appeal Circular No. 1/2000 guide, not binding principle-- Providing that once hearing date fixed, adjournments will not be routinely granted, even on consent--Complexion of this case has changed--Appears proposed party could provide essential evidence thus suggesting adjournment should be granted--But defendants have already gone to some lengths to arrange for master of vessel to travel to Vancouver for trial; case now three years old and further delay will not improve recollection of witnesses-- Matter not involving any great principle, monetary amount involved relatively small-- Denying adjournment may result in separate proceedings against receiving grain terminal, but plaintiff not vigorously pursuing action thus far--Failure to take seriously matter of scale tickets, leading to recent discovery that scale tickets critical, not exceptional circumstance requiring adjournment and if scale tickets in good order and complete, thus establishing short delivery, all that is needed is witness from receiving grain terminal to sort matters out--Adjournment denied--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 36(1).