The defendants moved to dismiss the proposed class proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
The plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal but requested a 60-90 day delay of the effective date to locate new representative plaintiffs for a fresh action.
The court held that s. 29.1 is a mandatory provision and the court lacks discretion to delay the effective date of the dismissal.
The motion to dismiss was granted.
