The plaintiff moved for an extension of time to serve two expert reports after failing to meet the timelines under r.53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court held that the r.53.08 leave factors, while not strictly binding on a pre-trial extension motion, should guide the discretion in the circumstances.
The court found no reasonable explanation for delay, concluding the non-compliance was a deliberate strategic decision rather than inadvertence.
The court also found prejudice to the defendant and undue delay to the scheduled trial if the extension were granted.
The motion was dismissed.
