Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants applied to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution, citing over six years of delay.

• Plaintiff provided hotel services under contract and claimed unpaid invoices totaling approximately $49,381.

• Defendants admitted an agreement existed but disputed charges as unauthorized, excessive, or lacking proper invoicing.

• The plaintiff’s delay was found to be both inordinate and inexcusable, with minimal formal litigation steps taken over several years.

• The court noted prejudice to the defendants due to faded memories and unavailable witnesses linked to 2016 events.

• The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

The plaintiff, Pioneer Inn Holdings Ltd., operated a hotel in Port Hardy, British Columbia. It entered into a hotel services arrangement in June 2016 with 0997329 Tourism Services Limited Partnership, whose general partner was affiliated with Pier Side Landing Hotel Ltd., a competing hotel in the area. The agreement was to provide on-demand accommodations at a rate of $115 per night for contractors and consultants working on renovations at the defendants’ hotel. Services were rendered between June and September 2016, and the plaintiff invoiced the defendants accordingly, eventually claiming $58,457.40, later voluntarily reduced to $49,381 due to accounting corrections.

The defendants admitted a contract was formed but claimed they had paid all properly owed amounts. They challenged other charges as unsupported, unreasonable, or unauthorized and denied liability for any interest claimed on overdue amounts.

The procedural history of the case is central to its outcome. The plaintiff filed its claim on September 19, 2018, the last day before the two-year limitation period expired. After the defendants filed a response in December 2018, the matter remained largely dormant. Informal document exchanges occurred in 2019, but no formal litigation steps were taken until early 2025, when new counsel was retained and a flurry of activity began in an effort to move the case forward.

The defendants filed an application to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. The court applied the three-part test from Giacomini Consulting Canada Inc. v. Strata Plan EPS 3173: whether the delay was inordinate, inexcusable, and whether it would be contrary to the interests of justice to allow the action to continue. The court found the net delay to be 5 years and 4 months (after deducting one year for COVID-related suspension of court operations), with only 8 months deemed excusable due to informal document review.

The plaintiff cited a mix of shareholder changes, pandemic disruptions, financial difficulties, and lawyer retirement as reasons for delay. However, the court was unpersuaded, noting insufficient evidence that the plaintiff lacked means to pursue the case or that former counsel was solely at fault. Further, attempts to provoke a settlement were not seen as legitimate efforts to advance the action.

On the issue of prejudice, the court recognized that nearly all personnel involved in the original 2016 transactions were no longer available and that memory decay and lack of documentation impaired the defendants’ ability to defend. The court also criticized the plaintiff's last-minute rush to file summary trial materials as a tactical move rather than genuine progress.

Weighing all factors under the “interests of justice” framework, including the stage of litigation, delay impact, public interest, and the merits of the claim, the court found dismissal was warranted. The claim was dismissed for want of prosecution, and the defendants were awarded their legal costs.