The appellant appealed an order dismissing a motion to validate the service of a statement of claim in a malicious prosecution action.
The claim was sent by regular mail to the respondent, a private citizen, but no receipt was returned and no personal or substitutional service was effected.
Although the Court of Appeal was satisfied the claim came to the respondent's notice, it found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision under Rule 16.08(a) to dismiss the motion, noting that almost ten years had passed since the events in question.
The appeal was dismissed.
