The plaintiff sued his former solicitors for negligence.
The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's considerable delays and non-compliance with court orders, including a consent order.
The plaintiff argued that dismissal was a draconian remedy and that non-compliance resulted from solicitor inadvertence and a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.
The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that dismissal was not yet justified given the preference for deciding cases on their merits and the plaintiff's substantial, albeit late, compliance.
However, the court imposed strict terms and a timetable for the plaintiff to advance the action, emphasizing it was a "last chance."