D. Silver

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial and to set a timetable for remaining steps.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court found that the plaintiffs provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, as they were actively working with experts to prepare liability and damages reports, despite their counsel's failure to communicate with the defendant.

The court also found that the defendant would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The plaintiffs' motion was granted and the cross-motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to vary timetable orders to extend the set down date for trial in an action concerning alleged manufacturing defects in water pipes.

The action had been delayed for several years, primarily due to the plaintiffs' failure to answer undertakings from discoveries.

Applying the Reid factors, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay, did not demonstrate inadvertence, failed to bring the motion promptly, and did not rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a second order of the Registrar dismissing the action for delay.

The delay was primarily caused by the inadvertence of the plaintiff's former counsel and his staff in failing to schedule discoveries and extend the set down date.

Applying the four-part Reid test, the court found that the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, demonstrated an intention to proceed, moved promptly to set aside the order, and that the defendants would suffer no actual prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an order fixing a litigation timetable to prevent the action from being dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14.

The defendants opposed, arguing prejudice due to the passage of time and faded memories.

The court found a reasonable explanation for the delay, including the plaintiff's former counsel's health issues and the defendants' own slow pace in the litigation.

The court concluded there was no significant prejudice to the defendants and ordered the action to continue with a fixed timetable for discovery and mediation.