Ontario court breathes new life into two longstanding auto claims that were dismissed for delay

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has overturned an order to dismiss, on account of delay, two motor vehicle insurance claims (each of which has lasted for six years or longer) that arose from an October 2001 auto accident.
A court registrar made an order to dismiss the two cases on Feb. 18, 2009, after Sandra Sutherland, a self-represented litigant, was “apparently confused” about what to do when one of the terms of a deadline extension were not met.
Sutherland was the plaintiff in an action against The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife) for long-term disability benefits after the auto accident.
She was also the plaintiff in a separate motor vehicle negligence claim against Joyce Vincenio, Emiliano Vincenio, KLLM Transport, James Corollo and Co-operators General Insurance Company.
After a prolonged case history that extended for more than six years, a court case management master asked Sutherland to bring her cases to trial by Nov. 28, 2008. Sutherland subsequently asked for an extension. The master said he would grant the extension as long as all of the parties consented, which they did not. 
Sutherland did not realize she then had to meet a deadline to file a motion with the court to apply for an extension. When she did not, her case was dismissed by order of the registrar. After some confusion about what to do next, she brought a motion to the Superior Court to set aside the dismissal orders.
In making his decision to overturn the dismissal orders and continue the trial, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell provided a long chronology of events in the proceedings, including 42 bullet points of trial events since the suit against Manulife was first launched in October 2002. [The Vincencio lawsuit was commenced in late 2003.]
Highlights of the chronology included 13 case management conferences between January 2004 and March 2008, as well as seven examinations for discovery — including four times with Sutherland — over the same period.
“Having weighed the various factors that a court should consider and adopting a contextual approach, it is my opinion that the dismissal orders in the two actions now before the court should be set aside, but on strict terms that are designed to advance the two actions to a final resolution with due procedure without any further delay,” Purell wrote.
The court ordered Sutherland to set actions down for trial by no later than July 17, 2009.