The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing a personal injury action as abandoned following a motor vehicle accident involving an unidentified driver.
Applying the contextual approach endorsed in appellate authority, the court treated the Reid criteria as central but not rigid prerequisites.
Although the plaintiff’s counsel did not fully explain every delay and the motion was not brought promptly, the court found the plaintiff intended to prosecute the action and that the responding insurer bore greater responsibility for the dismissal because it obtained indulgences yet failed to file even a notice of intent to defend.
In the absence of evidence of actual prejudice, the balance of justice favoured reinstating the action.
