|
Appeal - Dismissal for Delay (2). Reid v. Bracebridge (Town)
In Reid v. Bracebridge (Town) (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against "a motion judge’s order in relation to a registrar’s dismissal for delay":[1] The standard of review on an appeal of a motion judge’s order in relation to a registrar’s dismissal for delay is a deferential one, reflecting the discretionary nature of the decision. This court will not intervene unless the motion judge proceeded on an erroneous legal principle, made a palpable and overriding error as to the facts, or gave no weight or insufficient weight to relevant factors: Labelle v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2016 ONCA 187, 346 O.A.C. 155, at para. 21; H.B. Fuller Company v. Rogers (Rogers Law Office), 2015 ONCA 173, 330 O.A.C. 378, at para. 19.
[2] The appellant argues that the motion judge erred in her application of the relevant legal principles. In particular, he argues that she erred in assessing the explanation for the delay, in assessing whether the delay was through inadvertence, and in assessing prejudice.
[3] We are not persuaded that the motion judge erred. She referred to and applied the correct legal principles, as set out in this court’s decision of Piedrahita v. Costin, 2023 ONCA 404, at para. 8. We are not persuaded that she made any palpable and overriding factual error or gave insufficient weight to relevant factors. The motion judge thoroughly considered the record before her on the motion. Her findings of fact were open to her and are supported by the record.
[4] The appellant argues that the law in relation to review of a registrar’s dismissal prioritizes consideration of cases on the merits over resolution of claims in a timely and efficient manner in order to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. He argues that claims should not be dismissed, denying consideration on the merits, for “a minor and inadvertent error of counsel”. He argues that the motion judge failed to consider the importance of determining claims on their merits.
[5] The factors outlined in Piedrahita, referred to and relied on by the motion judge, strike a balance between the competing considerations of determination of claims on their merits and resolution of claims in a timely and efficient manner. In applying the Piedrahita factors, the motion judge necessarily balanced those competing considerations.
[6] The motion judge’s findings of fact were not of a minor and inadvertent error of counsel. Rather, she found that: the appellant failed to adequately explain his delay in moving the matter forward to trial; the record did not support a conclusion that the appellant always intended to prosecute the action but failed to do so through inadvertence; and, given the very lengthy delay, the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice if the matter were reinstated. Indeed, on the last factor, the motion judge found there would be actual prejudice to the Town if the matter were reinstated because of the loss of key evidence due to the delay.
|
