The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s dismissal order for delay after the action was not set down for trial by a court‑ordered deadline.

The court applied the contextual approach articulated in appellate authority and considered the four factors governing such motions: explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice.

Although the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for the prolonged litigation delay and did not establish inadvertence, the court found the motion was brought promptly and that the presumption of prejudice was rebutted.

Evidence of a Canada Revenue Agency investigation into the same investment demonstrated preservation of relevant documents and undermined claims of prejudice.

Balancing the factors contextually, the court set aside the dismissal order and allowed the action to proceed under a new timetable.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to add the proposed U-Haul defendants and substitute them for the defendant 'John Doe' as the owner of the motor vehicle involved in an accident, after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary threshold for discoverability under Wakelin, as no evidence was led to explain why the identity of the defendants could not have been obtained with due diligence.

However, the court granted the motion based on the doctrine of misnomer under Lloyd, finding a coincidence between the plaintiff's intention to name the vehicle owner and the U-Haul defendants' knowledge that they were the intended defendants.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the correction.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add two proposed corporate defendants more than two years after the alleged fraud.

The responding parties opposed the motion, arguing the claims were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no genuine issue of discoverability and holding that the doctrine of misnomer does not apply when a plaintiff seeks to add new parties as co-defendants alongside the originally named defendant, rather than correcting a mistakenly named party.

Following settlement of a security for costs motion by consent order requiring the corporate plaintiffs to post security into court, the court was asked to determine costs of the motion.

The plaintiffs argued the motion was unnecessary because they had offered undertakings from partners and allegedly accepted settlement proposals involving promissory notes.

The court held that a costs endorsement should not determine the merits of the underlying motion and applied the test of whether the moving parties’ position was clearly unreasonable.

It found the defendants reasonably proceeded with the motion, as the sufficiency of the undertakings and the existence of a concluded settlement were not self‑evident and the plaintiffs failed to provide timely details.

The moving parties, having obtained substantially the relief sought through the consent order, were awarded partial indemnity costs.