Can a motion to have the dismissal of a 1999 claim set aside under rule 52.01(3)?

This does not leave the plaintiffs without a remedy. The plaintiffs can move to have the dismissal of the 1999 claim set aside under rule 52.01(3): see e.g. Mosher v. Ontario, [2001] O.J. No. 3312 (S.C.J.). The motion record indicates that the plaintiffs previously sought to set aside the order under rules 37.14 and 59.06, not 52.01(3). The plaintiffs will, of course, have to meet the necessary legal test by leading proper evidence. If the plaintiffs have exhausted their rule 52.01(3) avenue of redress, they can apply for leave to appeal the order of Wilkins J. I appreciate that they are out of time, however they are free to apply for an extension of time for filing a notice of application for leave to appeal and to try to prove by proper evidence that they always had intended to appeal the order of Wilkins J.