Justice Hollins considered the Defendant’s Application to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim for long delay pursuant to Rule 4.33. Specifically, Justice Hollins considered whether the Defendant’s Reply to a Notice to Admit Facts was a step that significantly advanced the Action. Justice Hollins canvassed the jurisprudence and emphasized that the Court is to undertake a functional analysis to determine whether a step significantly advanced the Action.

Ultimately, Justice Hollins noted that the admission contained in the Reply to the Notice to Admit Facts was a needless admission as the Defendant had previously, during the Questioning process, substantially admitted to the fact in question. Therefore, the Action was not advanced by the Reply to the Notice to Admit Facts. As a result, Justice Hollins dismissed the Action pursuant to Rule 4.33.