Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Great-West sought dismissal of a 2006 disability benefits claim for want of prosecution under Rule 22-7(7) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, applying the three-part test set out in Giacomini Consulting Canada Inc. v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 3173, 2023 BCCA 473.
   
• Mr. Hanstke did not dispute that a delay of 20 years, with essentially no substantive steps taken, was inordinate.
   
• His evidence of addiction, homelessness, poverty, health issues, and family losses was accepted as genuine hardship, but it did not show that he was unable to take any step in the litigation over 20 years.
   
• Lost documents, a deceased treating physician, former Great-West employees whose whereabouts are unknown, and a dissolved co-defendant established serious prejudice, which the court treated as the determinative factor.
   
• Under its administrative services agreement, Great-West administered the benefits but did not fund or insure them, and with no contract between it and Mr. Hanstke, the court found the claim bound to fail.
   
• Although Great-West's application succeeded, the court made no award of costs because of Mr. Hanstke's living circumstances and impecuniosity.
   

Facts of the case

Martin Hanstke [the decision also spells the plaintiff's surname "Hantske" at paras 22, 25, and 41] worked for Pacific Newspaper Group (PNG) [para 22 states that PNG was his employer when the claim was filed in 2006, while paras 24 and 28 indicate that PNG amalgamated into Canwest in 2005 and that he resigned in August 2005]. PNG insured him for short-term disability, long-term disability, and life benefits under an employee benefit plan that PNG established and funded pursuant to a collective agreement. The Great-West Life Assurance Company administered, adjusted, and processed claims under that plan through an administrative services agreement with PNG, using employer funds to pay benefits. In 2005, PNG amalgamated with other companies to form Canwest Mediaworks Publications Inc., and Great-West then had a similar agreement with Canwest. Great-West was later amalgamated with Canada Life, which is defending the action in Great-West's name.

Mr. Hanstke applied for short-term disability benefits in 2004. Amanda Drage, a Great-West employee who reported to Linda McConnell, was appointed case manager and initially denied the claim, a decision that was later changed; the claim was accepted on November 22, 2004. His physician at the time, Dr. Ivo Hudlicky, told Great-West in March 2005 that he was no longer treating Mr. Hanstke. Treatment continued with Dr. Johan Wouterlout [spelled "Wouterloot" at para 31 and "Wouterlout" at paras 26 and 33], who provided notes and a form between March and June 2005 about Mr. Hanstke's condition and his methadone treatment program.

PNG directed that the benefits be terminated, with the last day payable July 22, 2005 [para 1 describes the termination as occurring on or about July 20, 2005]. According to PNG, the reason was Mr. Hanstke's refusal to comply with requirements imposed on him as a graduated return to work program. On August 5, 2005, PNG told Great-West to close the disability file, advising that Mr. Hanstke had resigned.

Represented by counsel, Mr. Hanstke sued Great-West and Canwest on July 14, 2006, primarily alleging breach of contract and breach of trust or fiduciary duty. Great-West filed an Appearance on or about July 28, 2006. The plaintiff took no steps to advance the action until December 5, 2013, when he filed a notice of trial for a four-day trial starting December 15, 2014. No trial brief, trial certificate, or trial management conference followed, and the notice was not served on the defendants; only Mr. Hanstke attended on the first day, and the trial did not proceed.

Great-West filed its notice of application to dismiss for want of prosecution on September 19, 2024. On February 20, 2025, Mr. Hanstke filed a second notice of trial for a 20-day trial starting April 20, 2026. The application was adjourned several times before being set down for long chambers on December 10, 2025. Lists of documents were delivered by Mr. Hanstke on October 23, 2025 and by Great-West on January 23, 2026. A case planning conference took place on January 27, 2026, after which Mr. Hanstke filed a notice of intention to act in person, and Great-West filed a notice of trial resetting the trial for 15 days starting July 12, 2027. On February 24, 2026, Mr. Hanstke delivered an amended list of documents stating that he no longer had possession or control of any previously listed document. No examinations for discovery were ever held. Justice E. Sigurdson heard the application in New Westminster on September 11, 2026, with Mr. Hanstke appearing in person.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Great-West brought its application under Rule 22-7(7) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009. Under Giacomini, the court asks three questions: whether the defendant has shown the plaintiff's delay is inordinate; whether the plaintiff has shown that delay is excusable; and whether it is in the interests of justice for the action to proceed despite inordinate and inexcusable delay. At the third stage, the court weighs factors including prejudice to the defendant at trial, the length of the delay, the stage of the litigation, the impact on the defendant's interests, the context of and reasons for the delay, the role of counsel, the public interest in hearing the case on its merits, and whether the action is bound to fail.

The administrative services agreements were also central. Under them, Great-West administered claims and facilitated payments for plans it did not underwrite or fund. Great-West gave evidence that the agreement at the centre of its arrangement with Canwest could no longer be found, although a successor agreement exists.

Reasoning and analysis

Relying on Giacomini, the court described inordinate delay as delay that is "uncontrolled, immoderate, excessive and out of proportion to the matters in question." It added that the inquiry is a holistic consideration of the circumstances rather than "temporal arithmetic." The record showed two long periods of complete inactivity: seven years from July 2006 to December 2013, and eleven years from December 2013 to February 2025 [para 10 describes the eleven-year period as one in which absolutely nothing occurred, although para 11 records that Great-West filed its notice of application on September 19, 2024]. Mr. Hanstke did not dispute that the delay was inordinate. Citing Liu v Ma, 2026 BCSC 390, the court held that filing notices of trial did not reset the clock. Where other authorities had found six-year (Kyle v Zimmer, 2024 BCSC 500) and five-year (Ramirez Carabantes v Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc./Ivanhoe Cambridge I Inc., 2024 BCSC 520) delays inordinate, a 20-year delay without meaningful progress was clearly so.

With inordinate delay established, the burden shifted to Mr. Hanstke to show it was excusable. Great-West acknowledged the real obstacles he had faced but argued that the 2013 notice of trial showed there were periods when he could have acted. Justice Sigurdson accepted that each of the hardships Mr. Hanstke described was genuinely limiting, yet found nothing in the evidence showing that he could not take any step over 20 years. That made the delay inexcusable.

Prejudice was the strongest basis for the court's conclusion at the interests-of-justice stage. Most, if not all, relevant documents had been lost, including the agreement at the centre of the Great-West and Canwest arrangement. Only three pages of contemporaneous medical notes were apparently available; Dr. Wouterlout had died, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons' retention period for medical records had expired. Ms. Drage no longer worked for Canada Life, and Ms. McConnell had retired in 2007, with Great-West unaware of their whereabouts or whether they were still living. Canwest had dissolved around 14 years earlier without producing any documents, no employment records for Mr. Hanstke were available, and identifying anyone who could speak to the employer's conduct would be difficult if not impossible. A reasonably contemporaneous independent medical opinion could not be obtained, and any surviving witnesses' memories could fairly be assumed to have faded. Justice Sigurdson found serious prejudice established and treated it as determinative.

Every remaining factor pointed the same way. The delay was extreme, longer than in any authority cited. Pleadings had not closed, no significant discovery had occurred, and Mr. Hanstke had not yet responded to Great-West's position that it was not properly named as a defendant. The bad faith allegations could affect Great-West's interests. Mr. Hanstke's hardship was acknowledged, but 20 years of delay and non-responsiveness outweighed it. His former counsel was not blamed: that lawyer had been responsive to Great-West's counsel but could not give a substantive answer because counsel could not locate Mr. Hanstke for instructions. As a private dispute over the termination of one employee's disability benefits, the case raised no genuine public interest.

On the merits, the court found the claim bound to fail. Great-West administered but did not fund or insure the benefits, had no contract with Mr. Hanstke, and did not make the ultimate decision on benefits, which rested with the employer. Canwest had dissolved in 2012 and had not produced a list of documents, making a claim against it essentially impossible to pursue. Citing Giacomini and Walco Industries Ltd. v McDougall, 2026 BCSC 1678, the court also noted that unreasonable delay undermines public confidence in the justice system even without serious prejudice to the defence.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Sigurdson granted Great-West's application under Rule 22-7(7) and dismissed the claim for want of prosecution, finding the matter nearly impossible to adjudicate and holding that there was no prospect of success against either defendant. Great-West prevailed but received no monetary award. Although a successful applicant would normally recover its costs, the court made no costs award because of Mr. Hanstke's living circumstances and impecuniosity.