The appellant challenged a status hearing order dismissing his civil action for delay arising from real estate transactions and sought leave to appeal costs.
The Court of Appeal held that the status hearing judge correctly applied the rule 48.14(13) framework, under which the plaintiff bears the burden to provide an acceptable explanation for delay and show that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.
The court rejected the submission that the rule 24.01 dismissal test should govern status hearings, emphasizing that the two mechanisms are distinct.
It also upheld the finding that the moving party bore primary responsibility for the prolonged inactivity and that the deaths of two material witnesses created severe prejudice.
The appeal was dismissed and costs of $10,500 were awarded to the respondents.
