The Appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim against the Respondents for long delay under Rule 4.33. The Appellant asserted that informal offers to settle and correspondence related to scheduling and settlement had moved the Action towards Trial. Further, as a self-represented litigant, the Appellant claimed that his former counsel or the Respondents had led him to believe that the settlement discussions had paused the clock in terms of passage of time under Rule 4.33.

The Court of Appeal first noted there was no evidence that the Respondents obstructed or delayed the Action. Further, there was no evidence to support the assertion that former counsel mislead the Appellant. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal concluded that more than three years had passed since the last significant step in the Action and dismissed the Appeal.