In a shareholder and oppression dispute arising from a failed business relationship, the defendants moved to dismiss the action for delay and alternatively sought further discovery relief, while the plaintiff moved to compel answers to discovery refusals.
The court held that the relevant period of delay was approximately two years, not five, and that although prejudice was presumed because the limitation period had expired, the presumption was rebutted and actual prejudice was not proven.
The court also rejected an estoppel argument based on opposing counsel's silence.
The dismissal motion was refused, the plaintiff obtained limited relief on specified refusals and production, and the defendants' cross-motion for further answers and a fresh examination was dismissed.
