LENCUCHA v CENNON ESTATE, 2026 ABKB 550

The Defendant sought to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Action for delay under Rule 4.31 or long delay under Rule 4.33. The Application failed under both Rules.

The Plaintiff commenced the Action in 2018, seeking adult interdependent partner support. The Defendant passed away in March 2026. The Plaintiff argued that settlement negotiations between June and November 2022 significantly advanced the Action. In particular, she relied on the Defendant’s November 28, 2022 settlement offer (the “Offer”) to argue that the Defendant’s November 24, 2025 dismissal Application was premature.

The Court held that the Offer constituted a significant advance under Rule 4.33. Justice Malik emphasized that the question under Rule 4.33 is whether settlement discussions resulted in important or notable progress toward resolution. Here, the Offer represented a “meaningful departure” from the Defendant’s earlier settlement positions and materially narrowed the gap between the parties. Because less than three years had elapsed between the Offer and the dismissal Application, Rule 4.33 did not apply.

The Court also declined to dismiss the Action under Rule 4.31, although it found the Plaintiff’s delay was inordinate and inexcusable. Malik J. held that the Plaintiff failed to advance the Action to the extent a reasonable litigant would have, and her expectation that settlement would eventually be reached did not excuse nearly three years of delay. However, the Estate failed to establish significant prejudice, as there was no evidence that the Defendant’s death had materially impaired its ability to defend the Action.