In the case of Curlew Gardens Developments Inc. et al v. Terraprobe Inc. et al, which was dated October 5, 2023, the plaintiffs, Curlew Gardens Developments Inc. et al, had sought two orders: (i) an extension of time to set the action for trial and (ii) the establishment of a timetable for the remaining legal steps. Meanwhile, the defendant, Terraprobe Inc., had made a cross-motion requesting (i) a status hearing to challenge the delay and (ii) the dismissal of the action against them. The plaintiffs had initiated this action in February 2017, claiming $1,000,000 in damages due to alleged negligence related to property contamination. Terraprobe had responded with a statement of defense and crossclaim in September 2017. Due to a miscalculation regarding the deadline for setting the action for trial, the plaintiffs' counsel had initiated contact with Terraprobe's counsel in March 2022, but emails had been mistakenly sent to the wrong address. Finally, in August 2022, the plaintiffs' counsel had reached out again, seeking Terraprobe's consent for a timetable order. Terraprobe had opposed this motion. The court had decided not to dismiss the action for delay. Instead, it had granted the plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time and the establishment of a timetable for the remaining steps in the case. Regarding costs, the court had ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs a fixed amount of $14,000, including disbursements and taxes, within 30 days, as agreed upon by the parties based on their level of success in the case.