B. Love

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order administratively dismissing her 2011 slip and fall action for delay.

The action was dismissed after failing to be restored to the trial list within two years of being struck on consent.

Applying the four-part test from Prescott v. Barbon, the court found the plaintiff's counsel's documented medical condition provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The court concluded the plaintiff always intended to prosecute the action, moved forthwith upon learning of the dismissal, and the defendants suffered no significant prejudice.

The motion was granted and the action restored to the trial list.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The trial was originally scheduled for November 2020 but was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that waiting for a civil jury trial, which was unlikely to proceed before the fall of 2022, would cause patently prejudicial delay.

The motion was granted, the jury notice was struck, and the matter was directed to be placed on a civil non-jury running list.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to serve a responding expert report regarding future care costs after the court-ordered deadline had passed.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and undue delay.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice, as the trial had already been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the court ordered the defendants to pay costs of $2,000 to the plaintiffs due to their cavalier attitude toward court orders.