The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for delay under Rule 48.14(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The action, alleging historic sexual and physical abuse from 1966-1974, was filed in 2015 but had seen little progress by 2020.
The motion judge found no acceptable explanation for the delay, including an 18-month period where former counsel explored a class action.
The appellants argued the judge failed to contextualize the delay given the absence of limitation periods for their claims and erred in characterizing counsel's decision to suspend the action.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the contextual approach to delay but finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the delay was egregious and unexplained, despite the nature of the claims.
Costs were awarded to the respondents.
