THE ADVOCATE 145
VOL. 77 PART 1 JANUARY 2019
ver to Victoria. I had taken them to the airport, having coordinated their
Island reception with John Horn. But they didn’t arrive. After quite a bit of
scurrying around (no cellphones, etc.), John learned they were still in Vancouver,
and it was several hours before we were able to track them down.
But this unexpected and very inconvenient change did not provoke a
response from our easygoing guests other than “These things happen.” I
told an airline person they’d left a knight of the realm on the tarmac and a
week or so later I received an effusively apologetic letter.
If Prowse, Ross, Martin and I had hoped to foster interest in civil procedure
by connecting Sir Jack in B.C. with members of the law faculties, and with
curious civil counsel and reform-minded judges (this must have been our
intention), then we fell well short of achieving our goal. Indeed, our failure
was complete, as proved, 30 years later, when the 2010 Supreme Court Civil
Rules were devised with help from a social scientist (a collaboration Jacob
would have welcomed14) but without assistance from proceduralists.
Where were the Jacobs in 2010? And where are they now?
1. The National Dream: The Great Railway, 1871–
1881 (Anchor Canada, 2001).
2. 12th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1975).
3. (1960) 13 Curr Legal Prob 171.
4. Originally the formal title was The Annual Practice;
later, it was The Supreme Court Practice.
5. (1970) 23 Curr Legal Prob 23.
6. (1975) 123 U Pa L Rev 1474.
7. Later published in a collection entitled The Reform of
Civil Procedural Law and Other Essays in Civil Procedure
(London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1982).
8. With Iain Goldrein (London: Sweet & Maxwell,
9. (London: Stevens & Sons, 1987).
10. Ian R Scott, ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1990).
11. The current edition is available from LexisNexis
12. Supra note 9 at 252–55.
13. Formally, the British Columbia Annual Practice.
Thomson Reuters publishes a new edition in late
August every year.
14. Supra note 9 at 254.