Law360 Canada ( November 3, 2026, 9:37 AM EST) -- Appeal by Appellants from order dismissing their application to dismiss Respondent’s action for want of prosecution. The respondent’s 2019 action over a family property development alleged agreements, corporate misconduct, fraudulent conveyances, conspiracy and false imprisonment, were all substantially denied. In 2025, the appellants alleged actual litigation prejudice from a witness’s failing memory, the death of corporate lawyer Takahashi and unavailable documents. They asserted that litigation stress caused Rav to develop health problems affecting his work. The chambers judge found four and one-half years of inordinate and inexcusable delay but determined that the interests of justice favoured adjudication on the merits because of the lack of prejudice, counsel’s role and the appellants’ inaction. She found Takahashi was an important witness for the Respondent and rejected the asserted medical causation as inadmissible opinion evidence unsupported by expert evidence. The appellants submitted that the judge misapplied the revised test by failing to recognize a presumption or onus favouring dismissal, erred in assessing prejudice from Takahashi’s death, failed to consider the reputational impact of the serious allegations, improperly required expert evidence of their impact on Rav’s health and work, and overlooked a nurse practitioner’s letter. The respondent submitted that the presumption was no longer part of the revised test, serious allegations were not necessarily prejudicial at the interests-of-justice stage and Rav’s evidence was inconsistent. The appellants did not invoke the presumption or general witness-memory prejudice below or brought the letter to the chambers judge’s attention....