As readers no doubt know, email is not very reliable. While convenient, we all know that emails often go astray or come late.
In Townsend the motions judge was unconvinced that substituted service by email would likely bring the claim to the defendant's attention. From a reliability standpoint, the court held that regular mail was "tried and reasonably reliable" as compared to email which was of an "entirely different and inferior category".
5 comments:
And yet the new Rules of Court in BC allow a party to provide an email address as one of the acceptable means of service ...
Good point. Well, BC is more advanced in many ways than Ontario!
I'm not sure why it wouldn't be effective as long as the person somehow admits service. I think we get a bit too formal about this sort of thing sometimes.
I can see why the judge would be cautious, but really, there's no reason why Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure can't be updated to take current realities into account.
As it stands, in Ontario civil matters, one *can* serve a lawyer of record via e-mail (see Rule 16.05(1)(d)) but only if that lawyer e-mails back an "acceptance of service".
I'm not convinced that an "acceptance of service" is still required. The Rules already allow a person to bring a motion to set aside "consequences of default", extend time or to support a request for an adjournment where that person can show that a document sent per the Rules didn't come to his/her notice at all, or came to his/her notice later (see Rule 16.07).
Whoops - the service-by-email rule is 16.05(1)(f). My apologies to the "Rules of Civil Procedure junkies" out there ;)
Post a Comment