The case involved a loose manhole cover that struck the plaintiff's vehicle, causing injuries
The Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan dismissed a personal injury lawsuit over a 2018 motor vehicle accident due to inordinate and inexcusable delays, with no progress made in over five years.
The claim was initially filed in 2019 after an accident involving a loose manhole cover that struck the plaintiff’s vehicle, causing serious injuries. The plaintiff alleged negligence by the driver who hit the manhole cover and by the city for failing to properly maintain it.
The defendants applied to dismiss the claim, arguing that the case had stalled with no meaningful progress for over five years. Despite communications between the parties, no mediation occurred, and no defences were filed. The court considered whether the plaintiff’s ongoing dispute with the provincial insurance agency over no-fault benefits needed resolution before pursuing further damages under The Automobile Accident Insurance Act (AAIA).
The Court of King’s Bench concluded that mediation was not a barrier to hearing threshold applications like a motion to strike for delay. Citing precedent, the court applied a three-part test, examining whether the delay was inordinate and excusable and whether proceeding with the claim would serve the interests of justice.
The court determined that the five-year delay was inordinate, even considering the complexities of calculating economic loss under the AAIA. It rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the case could not proceed until the no-fault benefits dispute was resolved, finding no legal basis requiring the finalization of insurance claims before pursuing a civil action. The court pointed to AAIA provisions that allow prospective calculations of future losses, enabling the lawsuit to move forward without waiting for insurance determinations.
The court also found the delay inexcusable, noting the lack of progress even after the termination of the plaintiff’s income replacement benefits in 2021. It referenced past cases where shorter delays were deemed inordinate and noted that the litigation remained in its initial stages, with no substantial actions taken.
Balancing all factors, including minimal demonstrated prejudice to the defendants and the early stage of the litigation, the court concluded that the interests of justice did not support allowing the claim to continue. The court dismissed the lawsuit for want of prosecution, ruling that the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable, and the circumstances did not justify further proceedings.
