Master M.P. McGraw

The defendant estate brought a third motion to dismiss the plaintiff's 15-year-old action for delay.

The plaintiff seeks a declaration of beneficial ownership of a property.

The court focused on the delay subsequent to the second dismissal motion in 2017.

The court found that the delay since 2017 was not intentional, contumelious, or inordinate, and was largely explained by the original defendant's death and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found that a fair trial remained possible because the action overlapped significantly with an ongoing application by the estate, and much of the evidence was preserved through affidavits and discovery transcripts.

The motion to dismiss was denied, but strict terms were imposed to move the action to trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant insurer to answer refusals from an examination for discovery and for leave to examine a second representative.

The action arose from the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's water loss claim on the basis that it was staged.

The plaintiff sought extensive disclosure regarding other similar claims denied by the defendant involving members of the same ethnic community, alleging racial profiling and bad faith.

The court ordered the defendant to produce its template denial letter and answer specific questions regarding any connection between the plaintiff's claim and the other claims.

However, the court denied the plaintiff's overbroad requests for the entire investigative files of the other claims, as the defendant was not relying on a conspiracy defence.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's request to examine a second representative, finding the first representative was not uninformed or evasive.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14 to set a timetable for the remaining steps in an action commenced in 2010.

The defendant opposed the motion and sought dismissal for delay.

The court found that the delay was largely attributable to the plaintiff's former counsel, who failed to advance the action and refused to release the file due to a solicitor's lien.

The court held that the plaintiff had not abandoned the action and should not be penalized for counsel's inaction.

Furthermore, the court found no actual prejudice to the defendant, despite the deteriorating health of its key witness and the destruction of some documents.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed on its merits.