Cook Roberts LLP v. Ruffolo

Cook Roberts LLP v. Ruffolo

The registrar exercised Rule 32(5) authority to fix hearing dates because the parties both contributed to delay, the client's claimed unavailability was not adequately proven or specific, the criminal trial schedule did not justify further adjournment, and it was preferable to complete the review rather than restart...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 BCSC 1765
Parties
Law Firm: Cook Roberts LLP; Client: Ruby-Ann Louise Juba Ruffolo
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Legal Profession Act Review / Requisition Scheduling Hearing Before District Registrar
Outcome
Requisition granted in part: continuation of the review fixed for January 19, 20 (a.m. only), 21 and 22, 2009; alternative relief abandoned
Legal Topics
Scheduling, Adjournment, Expedited Hearing, Solicitor's Lien, Procedural Form (requisition Vs Notice of Motion)
Source Language
english
Legal Profession Civil Procedure Equity (solicitor's Lien) Scheduling Adjournment Expedited Hearing Solicitor's Lien Procedural Form (requisition Vs Notice of Motion)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cook Roberts LLP

Law Firm

Ruby-Ann Louise Juba Ruffolo

Client

Procedural Posture

Legal Profession Act Review / Requisition Scheduling Hearing Before District Registrar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the continuation of the review should be expedited and completed before District Registrar prior to March 31, 2009
  2. 2 Whether the matter should be referred to a Master pursuant to Rule 53(5.1)
  3. 3 Whether the client's criminal trial and claimed unavailability justify an adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The registrar exercised Rule 32(5) authority to fix hearing dates because the parties both contributed to delay, the client's claimed unavailability was not adequately proven or specific, the criminal trial schedule did not justify further adjournment, and it was preferable to complete the review rather than restart before another registrar; accordingly the continuation was fixed for January 19, 20 (a.m. only), 21 and 22, 2009.

Court Disposition

Requisition granted in part: continuation of the review fixed for January 19, 20 (a.m. only), 21 and 22, 2009; alternative relief abandoned

Orders

  • Continuation of the hearing to take place on January 19, 20 (a.m. only), 21 and 22, 2009
  • Law Firm to file a Requisition confirming the January 2009 dates and deliver the filed Requisition to Ms. Ruffolo