How has the court dealt with issues where a lawyer has a tickler system in his office that brought forward the writ for service but the writ was not served until 11 days later?

Flinn J. dealt with a situation where the lawyer had a tickler system in his office that brought forward the writ for service but through some difficulty (not recorded in the judgment) the writ was not served. This situation came to his attention some 11 days later. The judge found that the defendants knew the action had been commenced, the period of time was not sufficient to have allowed the defendant to conclude that the claim had been abandoned, the evidence had not disappeared or lost its reliability in the brief span of 11 days. The court allowed an order to go renewing the writ. (See Sibbitt v. Cole, [1981] O.J. No. 353 (Co. Ct. J.))

In Curtner v. McNally, [2002] O.J. No. 4636, [2002] O.T.C. 929 (S.C.J.), the motions judge found the lawyer had a complex system of consultation files and representation files and no tickler was attached to the former. In this case the file changed from consultation to representation but the tickler system was not put into [e]ffect and the limitation period was missed due to inadvertence. There was no evidence that the defendant suffered any prejudice by reason of the delay or acted in any way other than in good faith. The motion for an extension of the limitation period in the Family Law Act was granted. Conclusion