The appellants appealed an order dismissing their 1991 motor vehicle accident action for delay.
The motion judge found inordinate delay, triggering a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, which the appellants failed to rebut.
On appeal, the appellants argued the motion judge should have considered the respondents' materials to rebut the presumption.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the respondents' materials were considered, they were inadequate to rebut the presumption of prejudice, particularly regarding the injured appellant's medical condition and income loss.
