Pervez ( Litigation Guardian ) v. Canada
T-1803-91
Hugessen J.
15/1/99
3 pp.
September 18, 1998 order specifying "any motion to strike, to dismiss, for default judgment, for particulars, for leave to file a defence or for leave to amend should be brought within one month"-Nothing done within one month of order-In response to order requiring plaintiffs to show cause why action should not be dismissed for failure to take any step within time fixed by order, counsel submitting not necessary as statement of defence served, but not filed, defendants not insisting on strict adherence to time limits-If counsel thinking not "necessary" to move for leave to amend, or that "strict adherence" to time limits not required, should have sought to vary order or to extend time-Did neither-Court order fixing time cannot be varied by consent-Order clearly requiring counsel to move with great diligence in matter-Clear purpose of order to have steps taken to bring case into current status within one month-As nothing done within month action dismissed.