Edward Goldentuler

The former solicitor for the defendants brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party in the plaintiff's default proceedings for the assessment of damages.

The solicitor argued he had an interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by the judgment, as the defendants had commenced a separate action against him for professional negligence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the solicitor had no interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and failed to show he would be adversely affected.

The court also held that allowing the intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the plaintiff's rights.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an earlier order dismissing the action for delay under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to set aside the order and whether the plaintiff satisfied the criteria for setting aside a dismissal under the Reid v. Dow Corning Corp. and Scaini v. Prochnicki framework.

The court found the plaintiff failed to adequately explain extensive litigation delay, failed to show inadvertence in missing procedural steps, and failed to bring the motion promptly after learning of the dismissal.

The court also found actual prejudice to the defendant due to the passage of time and potential loss of relevant records.

Applying a contextual approach to the Reid/Scaini test, the court concluded the interests of justice did not justify setting aside the dismissal.