In Marshall v. Ryan Motors Ltd. (No. 2) 1922 CanLII 279 (SK CA), [1922] 2 WWR 140, dismissing application to vary 1922 CanLII 142 (SK CA), [1922] 1 WWR 364, 15 Sask LR 118, Haultain, C.J.S. (Lamont, J.A. concurring) said: “I also think that this application should have been made at the earliest possible moment after judgment was delivered. The necessity for such an application as this could not reasonably have been foreseen before judgment was delivered. * * * But the application should be made as soon as possible after he has recovered such a judgment, and not, as in this case, after an interval of more than a month and a half, while in the meantime formal judgment has been deliberately entered by the appellant himself.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.