F. Siddiqui

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim brought a motion to further extend the peremptory set-down deadline of December 31, 2019.

The responding parties opposed the extension and sought to dismiss the action for delay.

The court found that the moving parties had deliberately failed to comply with the peremptory order and had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to justify varying it.

The motion for an extension was dismissed, and the court directed the Registrar to dismiss the action for delay.

The moving parties (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim) brought a motion to vary a timetable order and extend the dismissal deadline of December 31, 2018.

The responding parties opposed the extension, arguing the action should be dismissed for delay.

The Master found that while the litigation delay was significant, all parties had previously acquiesced to the leisurely pace and the responding parties had suddenly changed their position without warning.

The motion was granted, allowing a final extension of the timetable.

The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing a motion for a defence neuropsychological examination in a motor vehicle accident action.

The underlying motion had been brought after the action was set down for trial and after several other defence medical examinations had already been conducted.

The court considered the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the proposed appeal raised arguable issues regarding the need for leave after an action is placed on a trial list and whether an additional medical examination should have been permitted, the court found the issues lacked general importance and largely reflected litigation strategy and delay by the defendant.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.