Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- Can a Lawsuit Be Dismissed for Delay in Ontario?
- Court / Tribunal
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice
- Citation
- 2026 ONSC 3070 ↗
- Date
- June 16, 2026
- Area of law
- Employment Law
- Key issue
- Whether a civil action should be dismissed for delay when the plaintiff failed to advance the litigation for over 38 months and could not adequately explain the inaction at a status hearing.
- Outcome
- The court dismissed the action after finding the plaintiff's explanation for the prolonged delay inadequate and the plaintiff's incomplete disclosure on the motion further undermined the court's exercise of discretion in their favour.
- Why it matters
- Plaintiffs in Ontario must actively move their cases toward trial or risk permanent dismissal of their claims, regardless of whether the underlying dispute had potential merit.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
Under Rule 48.14 of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff whose action has not been set down for trial within the required timeframe must satisfy a conjunctive two-branch test at a status hearing: they must provide an adequate explanation for the delay and demonstrate that the defendant will not suffer prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs. Failing either branch can result in dismissal. Ontario courts also recognize a presumption of prejudice arising from significant unexplained delay, meaning the defendant need not produce direct evidence of harm. The burden falls on the plaintiff to rebut that presumption. Courts treat incomplete or redacted disclosure on such motions as a serious credibility issue that can independently weigh against the plaintiff in the court's exercise of discretion.
Important limits
What this does not mean
This decision does not mean that any period of inactivity will automatically result in dismissal. Courts conduct a contextual analysis of the entire litigation timeline, and a plaintiff who can provide a credible, well-documented explanation for delays and demonstrate the absence of uncompensable prejudice to the other side may still have their action permitted to continue. The case also does not establish that the COVID-19 pandemic is entirely irrelevant to delay analysis. Rather, it confirms that pandemic-era deadline suspensions have already been factored into the applicable rules, so the pandemic cannot serve as an open-ended excuse for ongoing inaction after those accommodations expired. Each case turns on its own facts, and the outcome here was driven by the combination of a missed five-year deadline, an inadequate explanation, and problematic disclosure — not by any single factor alone.
Can a lawsuit be thrown out because nothing happened for years?
Yes — Ontario courts have the power to dismiss a civil action when a party fails to move it forward within the timelines set by the Rules of Civil Procedure. A recent Superior Court decision, Mi5 Print & Digital v. Larmer, 2026 ONSC 3070 (CanLII) (full decision), is a clear reminder that filing a claim is only the first step — you have to keep pushing it toward trial or risk losing the right to proceed entirely.
What is a status hearing under Rule 48.14?
A status hearing is a court-supervised checkpoint designed to weed out cases that have stalled. Under Rule 48.14 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, if an action has not been set down for trial within the required timeframe, the registrar can schedule a status hearing. At that hearing, the plaintiff must satisfy the court that the action should be allowed to continue. If the plaintiff cannot provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, the court can dismiss the case — even if the underlying claim might have had merit.
The test the court applies comes from cases like Beshay v. Labib and is conjunctive: the plaintiff must explain the delay and show the defendant will not suffer prejudice that cannot be compensated with costs. Failing either branch can be fatal to the action.
What happened in this case?
The plaintiffs in this matter had allowed approximately 38.5 months to pass without any meaningful steps to advance the litigation. When the status hearing arrived, the court examined the timeline in phases, looking at what was done — and what was not done — at each stage. The plaintiffs asked the court to set new deadlines rather than dismiss the action, essentially requesting a second chance to get the case on track.
The court refused. The explanation offered for the prolonged inaction was found to be inadequate. The fact that the action had already missed the five-year set-down deadline — even accounting for the COVID-19 suspension period that courts built into the rules — weighed heavily against the plaintiffs.
Does COVID-19 still excuse litigation delays in Ontario?
No — not automatically, and not indefinitely. Ontario courts did grant procedural relief during the pandemic, including suspensions of certain deadlines. However, those accommodations have long since expired. Courts are now taking a firm line: the COVID period is over, and parties who have still not moved their cases forward cannot rely on the pandemic as a blanket excuse for ongoing inaction. In this decision, the court specifically noted that the five-year set-down deadline had been missed even after the COVID suspension was factored in.
Does the other side have to prove they were harmed by the delay?
Not necessarily. Ontario law recognizes a presumption of prejudice when there has been significant unexplained delay. The defendant does not have to produce direct evidence of harm — the court presumes it. The plaintiff then has the burden of rebutting that presumption. In this case, the court considered evidence about missing records and a letter touching on a party’s cognitive health, but ultimately found that actual prejudice had not been conclusively proven. That did not save the plaintiffs, however, because the delay itself remained unexplained. Both branches of the test had to be satisfied, and the explanation branch failed.
Can incomplete disclosure affect the outcome of a status hearing?
Absolutely. The court found that the plaintiffs had redacted communications that were directly relevant to the issues at the hearing. Those redactions concealed information about accounts and a file transfer — matters that went to the heart of whether the explanation for delay was credible. Courts treat a failure to make full and frank disclosure on a motion very seriously. Here, it undermined the adequacy of the plaintiffs’ explanation and informed the court’s exercise of discretion against them. Transparency on motions is not optional.
Practical takeaways for plaintiffs and their counsel
- Set internal deadlines the moment you file. The five-year set-down deadline sounds distant, but it arrives faster than most clients expect — especially when discoveries, expert reports, and scheduling disputes eat up time.
- Document every step you take to advance the case. If you ever face a status hearing, you need a clear, credible record of what was done and why any gaps occurred.
- Do not rely on COVID as an excuse. Courts have moved on. Pandemic-era suspensions are baked into the timelines; they do not give you extra runway beyond what the rules already provide.
- Disclose fully on motions. Redacting or withholding relevant communications will damage your credibility with the court and can independently cost you the motion.
- Act quickly if you receive a status hearing notice. You typically have a short window to respond. Getting legal advice immediately can make the difference between saving your claim and losing it.
If you have an employment-related dispute — such as a wrongful dismissal or breach of contract claim — the same delay rules apply. Our Ontario employment lawyers regularly help clients navigate both the substance of their claims and the procedural rules that govern how those claims must be pursued.
For clients in the Hamilton and Burlington area, our team is familiar with the local court practices and scheduling norms that affect how quickly cases can realistically be moved forward. Visit our Burlington employment law page for more information about how we work with clients in that region.
If you are unsure whether your employment contract or severance situation has given rise to a claim worth pursuing — and pursuing promptly — our employment contract review service is a good starting point.
UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from our Burlington office and serves clients across Ontario. If you have a civil or employment claim and are concerned about where it stands procedurally, reach out to our employment and civil litigation team to discuss your options before a deadline passes.
This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Generally, a plaintiff must set an action down for trial within five years of starting it, though certain periods like the COVID-19 suspension are excluded from that count. Missing this deadline can trigger a status hearing where the court decides whether to dismiss the case.
At a status hearing, the plaintiff must explain any delay and satisfy the court that the action should continue. If the explanation is inadequate or the defendant would suffer uncompensable prejudice, the court has the power to dismiss the action entirely.
It is possible to bring a motion to set aside a dismissal order, but courts apply a strict test and reinstatement is not guaranteed. Acting quickly and with full disclosure gives you the best chance; the longer you wait after dismissal, the harder reinstatement becomes.