The Plaintiffs appealed a Decision by an Applications Judge dismissing their Action for long delay under Rule 4.33(2). The Appellants started a trucking business in 1993, transporting feed and shavings for agricultural operations. By 2006, the business began working on oilfield reclamation projects, and their son, the Respondent, was hired as an independent contractor. The dispute centered on the ownership of the business and its equipment. The Appellants argued that the Respondent was to purchase the equipment at fair market value, whereas the Respondent claimed he took ownership of the business and equipment in January 2011.

The procedural history of the case was undisputed. The Appellants filed their Statement of Claim in December 2013, and the Respondent filed a Statement of Defence in March 2014. Records were exchanged in 2014, Questioning occurred in 2015, and Undertakings were addressed thereafter. On May 16, 2019, a Consent Order directed the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services (the Registrar) to produce certain vehicle registration records. On July 17, 2019, the Appellants’ former counsel provided those records to the Respondent’s counsel via a CD. After the Appellants’ counsel withdrew in February 2020, no steps were taken until September 2022, when new counsel was retained, and a Standstill Agreement was reached. In November 2022, the Respondent applied to dismiss the Action for long delay.

The main issue on Appeal was whether the last significant advance in the Action occurred with the May 16, 2019 Order or the July 17, 2019 letter providing the Registrar’s records. Rule 4.33(2) mandates that an action be dismissed if three or more years pass without a significant advance, unless certain exceptions apply. The Court emphasized that it must focus on substance rather than form and apply a functional analysis to determine whether a step meaningfully advanced the Action. A step is not significant if it is duplicative, perfunctory, or adds nothing new to the litigation.

The Court found that the documents provided by the Registrar duplicated records already exchanged in 2014. As such, the July 17, 2019 letter did not constitute a significant advance. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed because no significant step had occurred since the May 16, 2019 Order, thereby exceeding the three-year threshold under Rule 4.33.