In the case of UMS Solutions, Inc. v. Cornell, dated February 13, 2023, the defendant, Mr. Brad Cornell, sought to dismiss the 2019 British Columbia (B.C.) Action brought by the plaintiff, UMS Solutions Inc., for want of prosecution and requested costs. UMS Solutions was a Delaware corporation operating in New York, involved in selling and servicing medical equipment. They had alleged that Mr. Cornell breached an agreement as their sales representative, and the dispute was taken to arbitration in New York. The arbitrator ruled in favor of UMS Solutions in April 2017, and the arbitration award was confirmed by a New York court judgment in April 2019. UMS Solutions opposed the application and argued that any alleged delay in the proceedings was not excessive. They contended that if there was any delay, it was excusable, did not cause serious prejudice to Mr. Cornell's defense, and it would not be just to dismiss the action. However, the court disagreed with Mr. Cornell's argument of inordinate delay orchestrated by UMS Solutions. It concluded that while there had been a delay, it was not inordinate or beyond the control of UMS Solutions. The court also found that the delay was excusable, considering the ongoing proceedings in New York and the need for a final decision from the New York court to prosecute the action in British Columbia. No specific information regarding a financial award had been provided in the case.