The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to extend the time to set down the action for trial and for a new timetable.
The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and relying on the presumption of prejudice.
The court applied the two-part test from Faris v Eftimovski, finding that the plaintiffs provided an adequate explanation for the delay in the context of seeking further discovery and expert reports.
The court also found that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice, as clinical records were available, discoveries had been conducted, and expert reports exchanged.
The motion was granted, and a new timetable was established.
