In what circumstances will a dismissal under rule 77.08 be dismissed for delay under rule 48.14?

In Graff v. Bickerton, [2000] O.J. No. 3084 Master Beaudoin specifically refused to apply the factors he listed in Steele to a dismissal by the registrar under rule 77.08. He was of the view that the transition provisions in rule 77.12(2), like the dismissal for delay under rule 48.14, “govern the situation where a defended action is set down for trial.” Those rules deal with delay in bringing a defended action to trial, whereas rule 77.08 precedes the filing of a defence. He states at p. 3 that “rule 77.08 addresses a different concern. In these cases, the focus is on delay in initiating a proceeding and in preserving the integrity of the case management system. In these situations, some guidance can be derived from those cases that have dealt with extensions of time to serve a statement of claim.” In effect Master Beaudoin opines that there should be a different test for dismissal arising out of delay at the front end of the case management process than at the back end.