Sunday, May 20, 2012

It is dangerous to ignore repeated letters of counsel

Cook v. Cook, 2012 ONCA 333 shows how dangerous it is to ignore letters from the other side:

[1]          Given the history of the proceedings, the motion judge was entitled to exercise her discretion and refuse the appellant's request for an adjournment. 

[2]          We are of the view that it was within the motion judge's discretion to strike the pleadings. ...

[3]          Moreover, we note that respondent's counsel sent at least seven letters to appellant's counsel before the hearing of the motion in an effort to avoid having to proceed with the motion.  These efforts were to no avail.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Interesting comment, but wouldn't those letters be settlement privileged? The concept worries me. If counsel sends me a letter, and I reply in a manner she not like, am I now obliged to spend my client's money sending further replies every time she sends me the same request? There are already too many lawyers who try to create an evidentiary record through the sending of countless letters. Having the Court of Appeal implicitly endorse that tactic is not a good direction, I fear.