Index

July 14, 2025

Expecting Speed

July 14, 2025

Backdating Court Filings?

July 1, 2025

Weekends Not Added

May 21 , 2025

Can a Judge Vary a Clerk's Decision?

May 7 , 2025

Ignoring Binding Law

April 17 , 2025

Illegal Legal Fees are Now Common

April 10 , 2025

Filing Documents Just Before a Deadline

March 19 , 2025

Interim or Final?

March 19 , 2025

Coaching or Heckling During Questioning

February 20 , 2025

Nominal Costs?

February 12 , 2025

Canards Multiplying?

December 2 , 2024

Delayed Prosecution of a Suit

October 21 , 2024

2025 Handbook Typo

October 15 , 2024

Irreparable Faded Memories

September 17 , 2024

Is Filing Passive or Discretionary?

September 16 , 2024

Questioning to Obtain Evidence

July 30 , 2024

Same Old Sloppy Discovery of Records

July 23 , 2024

Non-Prosecution Canards, Old and News

July 10 , 2024

New Streamlined Trial Rules

July 2 , 2024

The Three Legs of Decision

May 16 , 2024

How to Meet Court Deadlines

April 15, 2024

Recycling Old Evidence or Records

April 10, 2024

Poor Record Disclosure Bites

April 3, 2024

History of the Drop-Dead Rule

March 26 , 2024

The Aims and Results of Costs

March 18 , 2024

More Troubles Filing and Serving Court Documents

March 14 , 2024

Precedents About Facts

March 11 , 2024

Question of Law or Fact?

February 29 , 2024

Disclosure in Chambers

February 21 , 2024

Not Attending a Hearing

January 31 , 2024

The Suggestions Box

January 2 , 2024

Plain Language for Lawyers

December 15 , 2023

Limitation Periods Have Shrunk

November 30 , 2023

Advocacy's Key

November 28 , 2023

Motions Fritter Away Time and Money

November 27 , 2023

Will Foreclosure History Repeat Itself?

November 21 , 2023

Rules of Court Bind Even the King's Bench

November 2, 2023

Records and Affidavit of Records

November 2 , 2023

Uncommon Law

October 20 , 2023

Expanding Judicial Review Evidence

June 22, 2023

Competition v. Benefits

June 19, 2023

Clogged Courts

June 12, 2023

Preparing Applications in Uncertain Conditions

May 8, 2023

Competence is a Delicate Flower

March 30 , 2023

Urgent! Very Hard to Meet a Limitation Period

March 13 , 2023

Parties to Planning Appeals

March 7 , 2023

Costs in Family Law Litigation

January 30 , 2023

Dodging Settlement Privilege

January 4 , 2023

Lurking Dangers and Errors

January 3 , 2023

Your Real Goals

December 5 , 2022

Contracts for Higher Costs

November 24 , 2022

Scope of Offers to Settle

October 13 , 2022

Checklist for Cross-Examination

September 16 , 2022

Reviewing Latest Changes

August 22 , 2022

First Steps in Problem Solving

July 28 , 2022

Checklist of Powerful Procedural Principles

March 22 , 2022

Repeating a Cross-Examination Question

January 25 , 2022

Enforcing Land Sales Becomes Easier

January 5 , 2022

Proving a Settlement After a Mediation

November 16, 2021

Types of Injunctions

October 1, 2021

Orders After Litigation is Over

August 11, 2021

Discoverability for Limitation Periods

August 5 , 2021

Releases of Claims

June 7 , 2021

Language Used Still Matters

May 17 , 2021

Serving Uncooperative People

April 15 , 2021

Death and After-Life of Contingency Agreements

February 22 , 2021

Legal Analysis

February 2 , 2021

Costs Clarified at Last

January 4 , 2021

Urgent!

December 10, 2020

Traps and Confusion in Service Times

November 24, 2020

Don't Cut Corners

October 2 , 2020

Consent Orders

August 4 , 2020

Electronic Hearings

July 21, 2020

Ceasing to Act

June 29, 2020

Writing Skills

June 29, 2020

Keeping Up With the Law

June 22, 2020

Assets as a Test for Security for Costs

June 19, 2020

What is This Case About?

June 11, 2020

Cross-Examining Child Witnesses

May 20 , 2020

Formal Offers

May 13 , 2020

Vexatious or Self-Represented Litigants

January 7, 2020

G.S.T. and Costs

December 20 , 2019

Electronically Navigating the
Handbook

October 7 , 2019

Questioning is a Bad Word

July 29 , 2019

Dismissal for Delay

May 7 , 2019

Rule 4.31 Fallacies

March 18 , 2019

More Dangers in Oral Fee Agreements

February 11 , 2019

Weir-Jones Decisions

January 9 , 2019

Discouraging Settlements

November 30, 2018

European Court Helps You Twice?

November 23 , 2018

Courts Overruling Tribunals

November 16 , 2018

New Evidence on Appeal

October 30 , 2018

Schedule C's Role

July 17 , 2018

Loopholes in Enforcing Settlements

May 7 , 2018

Enforcement of Procedure Rules


April 16, 2018

Limping Lawsuits are Often
Doomed


April 3 , 2018

Court of Appeal Tips for
Summary Decisions


March 19, 2018

Serious Dangers in Chambers
Applications


February 13 , 2018

Court Backlog


December 18 , 2017

Lowering the Status of Courts


September 15 , 2017

Access to Court Decisions


July 4 , 2017

Strictissimi Juris


June 14 , 2017

Why Don't Your Clients Settle?


June 5 , 2017

Gap in Rules About Parties


June 5, 2017

Personal Costs Against
Solicitors


April 26, 2017

Clogged Courts


April 11, 2017

Dismissal for Want of
Prosecution


January 6, 2017

Incomplete Disclosure


December 15, 2016

Mediation


November 23, 2016

Is Contract Interpretation Law?

Welcome

Côté’s Commentaries

© J.E. Côté 2016-2025

WEEKENDS NOT ADDED

 

People may assume that when some time limit expires during a weekend, it automatically extends to the next business day. That is not so. Times to file papers in court often extend, but many other things probably do not.

If the 3-year “drop-dead” time under R. 4.33 runs out with no significant advance to the action during that time, the court must dismiss the lawsuit. Nothing extends that time for holidays or weekends. Doing something useful on the next business day after the 3 years does not remove the fatal flaw under R. 4.33: Droog v. Hamilton 2025 ABCA 228, Calg 1401 0140 AC (Jun 23) (¶ 7). And even if the plaintiff wanted to serve some document on the defendant, such service does not depend on whether a courthouse or other court facility is open or not. Especially if the lawyer to be served has given an email address or fax number which can be used for service (id. at ¶ 8).

Section 22(2) of the Interpretation Act says that the time to do a thing may be extended to the next business day if the office where that thing had to be done was not open for normal business hours during the last day. But if service on a law office does not require physically leaving a piece of paper, and there is a means of service otherwise, then s. 22(2) is not triggered (id. at ¶ 8). That subsection says “office or place in which the instrument or thing is required to be registered, filed or done”. That is not true of mere service.

More seriously, s. 22 is about the time limit for doing some specific act, whereas R. 4.33 is about a three-year or longer gap. Rule 4.33 is not about whether some specific act can be done after a certain time. Clearly it can. An affidavit of records can be filed later, and is not a nullity. Filing it late meets requirements of the Rules about disclosing relevant and material records. If no R. 4.33 motion is ever filed, there would be no deadline at all for serving the affidavit of records. A late affidavit has some effect as disclosure. Rule 4.33 is about whether the whole action has been left with no significant advance, in any of dozens of possible ways, for 3 or more years (id. at ¶ 7).

– Hon. J.E. Côté

 

The Commentaries are intended to call the attention of lawyers to promising or threatening developments in the law, in civil procedure, in developing their skills, or simply to describe something curious, funny or intriguing.

The Hon. Jean Côté retired from the Court of Appeal of Alberta and would be willing to act as an arbitrator, mediator, or referee under Rules 6.44 and 6.45 of the Alberta Rules of Court.

He may be contacted through Juriliber at:

email: info@juriliber.com or phone 780-424-5345.