Filing a claim is an important step, but it is not the end of the responsibility to pursue it. A lawsuit can remain technically open while becoming increasingly vulnerable to dismissal because it has not moved forward.

In Paulson v Grosz, 2026 BCSC 1962, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed two motor-vehicle actions for want of prosecution. The decision offers a wider civil-litigation lesson about delay, evidence and the need for a realistic plan.

What went wrong

The actions had been pending for approximately eight and a half years. They remained at the discovery stage, and the court examined long periods without meaningful progress. Important steps toward resolving the claims or setting them for trial had not been taken.

The plaintiffs opposed dismissal, but the court found the delay both inordinate and inexcusable. The evidence did not provide a compelling explanation for why the proceedings had remained stalled.

It was not simply a count of elapsed years

The court applied the approach to delay discussed in Giacomini v Galanti. Once inordinate and inexcusable delay was established, it considered whether the interests of justice nevertheless favoured allowing the actions to continue.

The analysis included the stage reached, the reasons for delay, the parties’ conduct, counsel’s role, the impact of delay, the merits and the public interest. The judge did not conclude that the claims were bound to fail, but that factor provided only limited support for keeping them alive.

The defence’s periods of inactivity did not transfer responsibility for advancing the claims. The judge noted that the defence had sought documents, conducted a discovery and attempted to arrange trial dates. There was no evidence it had agreed to the plaintiffs’ delay.

The outcome—and its limits

The court dismissed both actions. It rejected the suggestion that dismissal must be treated as excessively harsh simply because the claims would not be tried on their merits. Unjustified delay also affects the administration of justice.

This was not a negligence judgment against the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The reasons discussed the absence of explanations, including evidence from counsel, but they did not decide a separate claim for professional liability. Any such claim would require its own facts, legal analysis and proof of loss.

Nor does the decision establish a universal expiry date for pending lawsuits. A delay application is fact-specific. Limitation periods for starting proceedings and dismissal for failing to advance an existing action are different issues.

Questions to ask about a stalled file

  • What was the last substantive step, and what is the next one?
  • Which documents, witnesses or expert opinions remain outstanding?
  • Is there an agreed timetable or trial date?
  • What is preventing progress, and is that explanation documented?

If funding, health, missing records or another proceeding creates a genuine obstacle, raise it promptly and obtain advice about managing the file. Silence and sporadic activity are not a reliable strategy for preserving a claim.

The takeaway

The practical question is not only whether a lawsuit has been filed, but whether it is being advanced toward a resolution. Sinclair Centre Law LLP can review a civil dispute’s procedural position and help identify the evidence, deadlines and next steps that require attention. Contact our Vancouver office if you need advice about a delayed or newly commenced BC claim.

Sources and next steps