The applicant sought judicial review of a Discipline Committee's decision dismissing his motion to stay a professional discipline charge on the basis of delay.
The applicant argued that the eight-year delay in the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.
The Divisional Court applied the framework for inordinate delay and found that while the delay was lengthy, it was not inordinate when viewed contextually.
Significant portions of the delay were caused by the applicant's own motions or were inherent to ensuring a fair process.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
