In meeting this part of the test, Delio must convince the court that his mother has not demonstrated any significant prejudice in presenting her case at trial as a result of his delay. In that regard, a plaintiff cannot be expected to speculate about prejudice to the defendant. As Laskin J.A. noted in Chiarelli v. Wiens, 2000 CarswellOnt 280 at para. 14: Although the onus remains on the plaintiffs to show that the defendant will not be prejudiced by an extension, in the face of such a general allegation, the plaintiffs cannot be expected to speculate on what witnesses or records might be relevant to the defence and then attempt to show that these witnesses and records are still available or that their unavailability will not cause prejudice. It seems to me that if the defence is seriously claiming that it will be prejudiced by an extension it has at least an evidentiary obligation to provide some details. The defence did not do that in this case.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.