Short answer. Your complaint may be dismissed, and if the defendant appears despite your absence, they become entitled to judgment on their counterclaim; conversely, if a sole defendant fails to appear, you as plaintiff become entitled to judgment. The conference itself must be held within thirty days after the last answer is filed.
What the law says
Not later than thirty days after the last answer is filed, a preliminary conference shall be held. The provisions of Rule 18 on pre-trial shall be applicable to the preliminary conference unless inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule. The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference shall be cause for the dismissal of his complaint. The defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his counterclaim in accordance with the next preceding section. All cross-claims shall be dismissed. (7, RSP) If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall likewise be entitled to judgment in accordance with the next preceding section. This procedure shall not apply where one of two or more defendants sued under a common cause of action who had pleaded a common defense shall appear at the preliminary conference. No postponement of the preliminary conference shall be granted except for highly meritorious grounds and without prejudice to such sanctions as the court in the exercise of sound discretion may impose on the movant.
Rule 70, Section 8 — Preliminary conference; appearance of parties. Read the full provision →
A firm deadline for holding the conference
The preliminary conference in an ejectment case is not left open-ended; it must be held not later than thirty days after the last answer is filed, with the rules on pre-trial applying to it unless inconsistent with this Rule's own summary procedure provisions. Borrowing from Rule 18's pre-trial framework, rather than writing an entirely separate procedure, lets the preliminary conference draw on settled pre-trial practice — narrowing issues, exploring settlement, and marking exhibits — while still keeping ejectment cases moving on their own compressed timeline.
The consequence of the plaintiff's absence
If the plaintiff fails to appear at the preliminary conference, that failure is cause for dismissal of the complaint. And if the defendant appears despite the plaintiff's absence, the defendant becomes entitled to judgment on their counterclaim, turning the plaintiff's no-show into an affirmative loss rather than a mere delay. A plaintiff who simply skips the conference risks losing not just the complaint itself, but ending up on the losing end of whatever counterclaim the defendant already pleaded in the answer.
The mirror consequence for a sole defendant, and strict limits on postponement
The same logic runs the other way: if a sole defendant fails to appear, the plaintiff likewise becomes entitled to judgment. This does not apply where one of multiple defendants sharing a common defense does appear, since that appearing defendant's participation preserves the common defense for everyone sued under it. No postponement of the conference is granted except for highly meritorious grounds, and courts may impose sanctions on a party who seeks one without such grounds. All cross-claims, meanwhile, are simply dismissed at this stage regardless of who appears, keeping the conference focused squarely on the plaintiff's claim and any counterclaim against it.
Related provisions
- Rule 70, Section 8 — Preliminary conference; appearance of parties
- Rule 70, Section 9 — Record of preliminary conference
- Rule 70, Section 5 — Action on complaint