Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Motion to set aside administrative dismissal under Rule 37.14 after personal injury claim was struck for delay.

• Plaintiff's delay attributed entirely to counsel’s mismanagement, not plaintiff’s conduct.

• Court applied the Reid test, weighing delay explanation, inadvertence, promptness, and prejudice.

• Inadvertence was not found; delay resulted from lack of a reliable tickler system.

• Defendant failed to demonstrate actual or presumed prejudice that would prevent a fair trial.

• Court reinstated the action but declined to award costs due to procedural noncompliance by plaintiff’s counsel.

Background and procedural history

This case arises from a personal injury action commenced by the plaintiff following a motor vehicle accident in August 2017. The claim was issued in June 2019, and liability remains contested. Over the years, the case proceeded slowly through preliminary stages including document exchange, examinations for discovery, and a mediation attempt in 2024. However, due to ongoing delays largely stemming from the plaintiff’s counsel, the case was administratively dismissed for delay by the Registrar in December 2024 under Rule 48.14. The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside the dismissal and have the action reinstated.

Court’s analysis of the Reid factors

The court assessed the motion using the four-part test set out in Reid, which examines whether the delay was reasonably explained, arose from inadvertence, whether the plaintiff moved promptly to set aside the dismissal, and whether the defendant would suffer prejudice from reinstatement.

On the first factor, the court accepted that the delay was adequately explained in context. Two key periods of inactivity were identified: one between 2019 and 2021 when potential amendments were discussed, and another leading up to the dismissal in 2024 when the five-year deadline was missed. The plaintiff’s counsel took full responsibility, citing practice management and pandemic-related disruptions. The plaintiff herself was found to have remained engaged and cooperative throughout.

On the second factor, the court found no inadvertence. Rather, the delay stemmed from systemic file mismanagement—particularly the absence of a functioning reminder system to track litigation deadlines. This did not amount to the kind of excusable lapse that meets the threshold for inadvertence under the test.

As to promptness, the court found the plaintiff acted swiftly after discovering the dismissal, filing the motion within a month. The third criterion was therefore satisfied.

Regarding prejudice, the defendant did not file personal affidavit evidence and conceded during submissions that there was no actual prejudice. The court emphasized that both parties had moved the case forward through discovery and mediation, and that evidence and witnesses remained available. The potential future costs or complications from possible claim amendments did not amount to non-compensable prejudice sufficient to oppose reinstatement.

Outcome and conditions imposed

The court granted the motion to set aside the administrative dismissal and reinstated the action. However, given the plaintiff’s failure to comply with procedural rules and the absence of any proper system by counsel to track deadlines, the court declined to award costs for the motion. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The court also ordered that a case conference be scheduled to finalize next steps, including determining whether the plaintiff would proceed with amendments to the claim, potentially increasing damages beyond policy limits and adding the OPCF-44 insurer. The plaintiff was required to clarify her position prior to that conference to ensure efficient case management going forward.