Can "inadvertence" amount to a reasonable excuse that justifies a motion for abridgment of time?

The plaintiff submits a number of cases for the proposition that "inadvertence" can amount to a reasonable excuse that justifies the motion for abridgment of the time in the Rules. Among the authorities cited, the plaintiff referred to the case of Cummings v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services), 2011 NSCA 2 for the proposition that the "reasonable excuse" requirement on an abridgment of time motion is lessened where the applicant can demonstrate merits in their case. However, most of the authorities referred to by the plaintiffs are instances where the default judgment was being overturned where the defendant provided some explanation for not filing a timely defence. There are indeed some cases that do suggest that inadvertence can ground a motion for abridgment of time. However, the cases cited by the plaintiff in respect of inadvertence deals with circumstances of default judgments being set aside where the defendant provided some explanation for not filing a timely defence, but in no instance are the cases in support of inadvertence either in failing to have knowledge of a particular limitation limit or in misinterpreting what I believe is a clear provision in the Rules.