Nelson Dewey

The appellants appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside a Registrar's order that dismissed their motor vehicle accident action for delay.

The action had been dismissed twice due to the appellants' former counsel's failure to advance the file.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's application of the Reid factors, noting the appellants failed to adequately explain the delay and the respondents suffered prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the Master's costs order was refused.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing their motor vehicle accident action as abandoned under Rule 48.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the four-factor test governing motions to set aside dismissal orders, including explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found repeated and unexplained litigation delays, inadequate explanations for missed deadlines, and a failure to bring the motion promptly after the dismissal came to counsel’s attention.

A presumption of prejudice arose because the limitation period had expired and important pre‑accident medical evidence was potentially unavailable due to late production of OHIP summaries.

Balancing the factors, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the Reid criteria and declined to set aside the dismissal order.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order awarding $3,950 in costs to the respondent and making findings on a defamation issue.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reducing the costs award to $1,000 to reflect the respondent's limited success on the motion.

The Court also set aside the motion judge's findings on defamation, agreeing with the appellant that the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to make such findings on that type of motion.

The respondent insurer brought a motion for security for costs of the appellant's appeal.

The underlying action involved a motor vehicle accident claim that was dismissed after the insurer successfully moved to enforce a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion for security for costs, finding good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, and that the appellant had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay the costs of the appeal.

The appellant was ordered to post $5,000 in security.