What is the cost and delay of a new application in a different way than a streamlined, more cost-effective application?

Proportionality is the broad principle that guides the exercise of this discretion: Rule 6.02(6). In weighing the relative cost and delay of the two kinds of proceedings, one compares the new application with the newly streamlined action: Monk v. Wallace, 2009 NSSC 425 (Murphy J.) at para. 15.

Keeping an eye on Rule 6.02(6), one has to see some presumptions supplied by Rule 6 as rebuttable. Rule 6.02(3) provides for two kinds of circumstance in which a rebuttable presumption favours an application, the first of which may influence the determination of the motion in this case: substantive rights asserted by a party will be eroded in the time it will take to bring an action to trial, and the erosion will be significantly lessened if the dispute is resolved by application. There are some causes which, by their very nature, give rise to this presumption, such as shareholder oppression: Jeffrie v. Hendriksen, 2011 NSSC 292 (Pickup J.)