The appellants commenced an action in 2017 for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution.
After years of delay and failure to comply with a timetable order, the motion judge dismissed the action for delay in 2025.
On appeal, the appellants argued the motion judge erred in finding the delay was intentional and in failing to specifically find prejudice.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's finding of intentional delay was supported by the record and that inordinate delay can itself be prejudicial, with the burden on the appellants to disprove prejudice.
