The plaintiff, Apotex Inc., was required to show cause at a status hearing why its action against the defendant should not be dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14(3).
The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to meet the two-part test from Khan, requiring an acceptable explanation for the delay and proof of no non-compensable prejudice.
The Master applied a contextual approach, finding that ongoing settlement discussions provided a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Although the plaintiff did not fully prove an absence of prejudice, the Master concluded that fairness and the preference for deciding cases on their merits outweighed the delay, allowing the action to continue.
