Friedrich v. Canada

Friedrich v. Canada

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not err in concluding that the plaintiffs' near total failure to advance their claim, the inordinate delay, the lack of any meaningful plan to proceed, and the exceptional nature of the prior appellate order justified dismissal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 FCA 325
Parties
Appellant: HARRY R. FRIEDRICH; Appellant: HOME TECHNICS LTD.; Appellant: TECHNICAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES INC.; Appellant: HAMILTON PROFILE EXTRUDERS INC.; Appellant: FRIEDRICH INDUSTRIES INC.; Appellant: ASSEM-LAB INC.; Appellant: I.T. ELECTRONIC CERAMICS INC.; Appellant: F & T TOOLING INC.; Appellant: HIGH-TEC TRUCK LEASING LTD.; Appellant: OMEMEE DRIVER SERVICE LTD.; Appellant: CAD CAM CANADA LTD.; Appellant: FRIEDRICH TECHNOLOGIES INC.; Respondent: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (dismissal for Delay) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Delay, Status Review, Inordinate Delay, Failure to Prosecute
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Practice and Procedure Dismissal for Delay Status Review Inordinate Delay Failure to Prosecute

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HARRY R. FRIEDRICH

Appellant

HOME TECHNICS LTD.

Appellant

TECHNICAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES INC.

Appellant

HAMILTON PROFILE EXTRUDERS INC.

Appellant

FRIEDRICH INDUSTRIES INC.

Appellant

ASSEM-LAB INC.

Appellant

I.T. ELECTRONIC CERAMICS INC.

Appellant

F & T TOOLING INC.

Appellant

HIGH-TEC TRUCK LEASING LTD.

Appellant

OMEMEE DRIVER SERVICE LTD.

Appellant

CAD CAM CANADA LTD.

Appellant

FRIEDRICH TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Appellant

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (dismissal for Delay) / Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the action following a notice of status review
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' near total failure to advance their claim and inordinate delay warranted dismissal
  3. 3 Effect of a prior appellate order made in "peculiar circumstances" on the exercise of discretion to dismiss

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not err in concluding that the plaintiffs' near total failure to advance their claim, the inordinate delay, the lack of any meaningful plan to proceed, and the exceptional nature of the prior appellate order justified dismissal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs