Next, counsel for the defendants refers to Lee v. Hui (1995), 10 B.C.L.R. (3d) 58 (S.C.). The facts of that case are unusual. The solicitor for the defendant received a letter from the solicitor for the plaintiff confirming that the trial was to be set for May 1, 1995 and advising that he would deliver the notice of trial in due course. Without waiting for the notice of trial, the solicitor for the defendants issued a jury notice on May 27, 1994. The notice of trial was issued May 30, 1994 setting the trial for May 1, 1995. The jury notice was not delivered late; it was delivered early. The parties then conducted the pre-trial processes and prepared for trial. On May 1, 1995 there was no judge available to hear the case and it was adjourned and reset for November 6, 1995. On May 15, 1995 a second jury notice was filed by counsel for the defendant, and it was delivered on May 16, 1995. On July 18, 1995 the plaintiff brought an application to strike the jury notice as having been delivered “out of time”.
"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.