Against my better judgment, I checked in on the Twitter account of undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross and, unsurprisingly, there was nothing about the last several days of Rule 4.33 blog posts here, despite the fact that we all know Patrick reads this blog and loves to tweet snarky, condescending insults so let's summarize how this is going to go down.
As we have all learned recently, Alberta's "Drop Dead" Rule 4.33 has nothing to do with a lawsuit's merits, or the childish and frivolous malice of the Plaintiff, or anything like that. It is, rather, a purely and exclusively time-based rule -- if a civil claim has been stalled for more than three years, then upon application by the Defendant, the Alberta court is required to dismiss that action for long delay. Nothing else is taken into consideration other than the three-year deadline. Which Patrick is well past by now so, yes, he's going down. So what is the point of documenting his childish bragging over all that time?
I'm glad you asked.
All of that is being collected and will be placed before the court to justify a significant subsequent costs award, as I have shown before:
Note point 3. above, which clearly shows that, yes, a judge can order full costs if the Plaintiff's conduct is seen as "an abuse of process," and if you don't think more than three years of Patrick bragging about this filing while refusing to move it forward does not fall into that category, you have not been paying attention.
Also, there should be other surprises for Patrick when he shows up for that hearing, but I'll keep all that to myself for now.
BONUS TRACK: One of Patrick's most damning and self-destructive tweets would be this one:
wherein Patrick openly admits, back in 2023, that he is failing to advance his lawsuit, then continues to do nothing for another almost three years. I guarantee that tweet will be front and centre in my costs submission.
PATRICK'S POSSIBLE RESPONSES: It's worth pondering (or even predicting) how Patrick will fight back against this application, given that he has very little latitude. We already know about the Rule 4.33 three year time limit, and we know from the case's Procedure Record that Patrick has done absolutely nothing for well over three years, which means that the court is required to dismiss his lawsuit. So what are his possible defenses?
As I've mentioned before, there is a short list of very specific exceptions under which the court must not dismiss a lawsuit pursuant to Rule 4.33:
That's it, and I can assure you that none of the above are in play here. There is no authorized court order to pause this case, there is definitely no mutual agreement to put it on hold, and neither party has done anything that could be considered "active participation" that would have resulted in a "significant advance" in the case.
And that's it ... that's all Patrick can argue, and none of it holds. So what will he do? Who knows?















