What is the test for dismissing an application under s.25(6) of the Criminal Code for want of prosecution?

Counsel on this application accepted Frew v. Roberts as stating the test to be applied on this application. While I see no reason not to apply that test in this case, I suggest that the burden upon a party applying under s.25(6) may be heavier than that imposed by the former regime upon a party opposing an applica­tion to dismiss for want of prosecution. The burden of apply­ing now rests on the appellant. The 180 day period does not begin running until there has been some delay in prosecu­tion of the appeal. The appellant must meet the deadline or suffer the dismissal of the appeal. The failure to take any step to remedy the default within the 180 day period may, in most cases, be enough to establish that the delay was inordinate but I need not decide that. The delay having gone on in this case for so many more months, it was obviously inordinate. * * *

Furthermore, having regard to the matters sworn to by the wife, there clearly has been a serious degree of preju­dice to her of the kind referred to by the Chief Justice in Frew v. Roberts, supra. Her circumstances have deteriorated since trial. I accept that it is vital to her well-being that the question whether she can retain the house be settled as soon as poss­ible.