The plaintiffs brought a motion for substitute service of a statement of claim and an extension of time for service under Rules 16.04 and 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The action arose from a fatal pedestrian motor vehicle accident, but the defendants had not been served within the required six‑month period after issuance of the claim.
The court found the plaintiffs had made minimal efforts to locate and serve the defendants and had not demonstrated due diligence.
Applying the principles in Chiarelli v. Weins and considering prejudice arising from the delay, the court held that both presumed and actual prejudice existed, including the loss of key witnesses and impaired ability to pursue claims against other potentially liable parties.
The plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.
The motion for substitute service and extension of time was therefore dismissed.
