COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1] The plaintiff moved to set aside the registrar’s administrative dismissal of the action dated October 9, 2015. The request was opposed by the defendants.
[2] By decision dated February 8, 2018, I granted the plaintiff’s motion. I did not accept the plaintiff’s argument that the dismissal was improper because the plaintiff was under a disability but applied the factors set out in Reid v. Dow Corning, reported at [2001] O.J. No. 2365 to the particular factual circumstances of this case and concluded that it was in the interest of justice that the plaintiff be allowed to continue with his claim.
[3] In my decision, I observed that granting the order setting aside the administrative dismissal was an indulgence for the plaintiff and not an endorsement of slow progress in the action which has now been outstanding for just short of six years. I required the parties to file a timetable for completion of outstanding matters leading to the setting down of the action for trial which they have now done.
[4] The parties were not able to resolve the issue of costs and as a result provided costs submissions.
Background:
[5] The plaintiff’s claim arose from two motor vehicle accidents. The first, which occurred June 1, 2010, involved the defendant Amsterdam and the second, which occurred December 24, 2010, involved the Dashwood defendants.
[32] While the issue is not a complicated one, nevertheless it was important to both the plaintiff and the defendants from their respective positions.
[33] The informal offer to settle was not in the form mandated by rule 49 and was not designated as open for acceptance once the motion was brought. As such, it has no significant impact on my decision as to costs.
[34] Under the circumstances of this case, based on the actions of the plaintiff in failing to comply with the timetable ordered at the status hearing and his failure to act promptly thereafter, I am convinced that there should be no order of costs in favour of the plaintiff.
[35] As to the defendants, while opposing the motion may have been reasonable as I have indicated, their lack of success and partial complicity with the delay in bringing the matter forward makes it inappropriate for there to be a costs order in their favour.
[36] Therefore, in summary, there will be no order as to costs of the motion.