The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s dismissal order after the action was dismissed for delay in service of the statement of claim.
The court applied the four‑factor test from Reid v. Dow Corning, considering the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice.
Although the explanation for the delay—largely attributable to counsel’s inadequate supervision of delegated tasks—was weak, the court found the missed deadline resulted from inadvertence rather than deliberate disregard.
The plaintiff acted promptly upon learning of the dismissal and successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice arising from the passage of time.
Balancing the factors contextually, the absence of prejudice outweighed the unsatisfactory explanation for delay, and the dismissal order was set aside with an extension of time for service of the statement of claim.
