You are here

Urgency or inconvenience will not excuse need for court application

Counsel should be wary of considering inconvenience or urgency as justification for not seeking the court’s permission:
 
Counsel for the plaintiff chose to use the information in the expert’s report to frame, in part, a new proceeding rather than apply for leave because, according to him, the limitation period might have expired before defendants’ counsel was available for a Chambers application. Yet the application could have been brought on short notice, with leave, or perhaps even without notice as the undertaking is owed to the court rather than the opposing party.
(Professional Components Ltd. v. Rigollet, 2010 BCSC 688 at para. 23).
 
Similarly, the fact that the court would likely grant permission is not a sufficient basis for proceeding without consent or court order:
 
Nor am I minded to create an exception to the rule to permit procedural “shortcuts”. If it is clear that the Court’s consent would have been given had it been sought, then it simply should have been sought.
(Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. Thurber Consultants Ltd., 2000 BCCA 453 at para. 15).
 
 
This book was written by Michael Dew, a Vancouver lawyer who practices civil litigation, including representing claimants in motor vehicle accident claims, persons who have been denied insurance coverage by insurance companies, and persons dealing with builders lien issues.