This application presents a peculiar problem of its own. It arises from the fact that the matter was before the master twice. Of course, as an ex parte application, it was not controverted on the first occasion. In my judgment, with all respect, the answer to the first application should have been that given to the second; to wit, application denied "due to lack of effort in serving the writ". Nothing in the material before the master showed any attempt to effect service. There was no claim of any obstacle to service. It did show that the writ had been outstanding for almost a year. To quote Middleton J. (as he then was) in Appleyard v. Mulligan (1912), 3 O.W.N. 943 at p. 945, 3 D.L.R. 288 at p. 289: The limitation of twelve months within which a writ may be served is not intended to be idle; and, before a writ can properly be renewed, there must be some real excuse for the delay.
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.