What is the effect of time, time, and lack of communication between counsel and plaintiff?

[27] Two main issues form the foundation for this decision. The first is one of time. In looking at the gap of almost seven years between the closing of pleadings and this motion, the lengthy time frame has a heavy impact upon the court. No correspondence was exchanged between counsel nor were any pre-trial standard steps taken. To an impartial observer, it appears that the parties both lost interest in the conduct of this action. I accept the contents of paragraph 125 set forth by Justice Mainella in Laing v. Sekundiak 2013 MBQB 17: “125 At every stage the applicant has referred to her ongoing medical problems as a factor in excusing some of the delay in the hearing of the application. Her medical conditions are set out in her affidavits and appear genuine. The respondent has never cross-examined the applicant or challenged her claims. Where a litigant’s ongoing medical problems are genuine, they can be a factor that can excuse some delay in a proceeding. See Frank v. Alpert (1970), 1970 CanLII 198 (SCC), [1971] S.C.R. 637 (S.C.C.).” (emphasis mine)