What is the test for a motion to dismiss for delay?

Both counsel referred to the reasons for decision in Furtney Estate v. Furtney[2] as follows: 60. The law on a motion to dismiss for delay is well settled. The proceeding should not be dismissed unless: (1) the default is intentional and contumelious; or (2) the plaintiff or his or her lawyers are responsible for the inexcusable delay that gives rise to a substantial risk that a fair trial might not now be possible. (citation omitted) 61. In the second branch of the test, the requisite level of delay has been referred to either as “inexcusable” or “inordinate” or “unreasonable in the sense that it is inordinate and inexcusable.” Where such a delay has occurred, a rebuttable presumption arises that the defendants are prejudiced because there is a substantial risk that a fair trial might not be possible. There are several reasons for the presumption; one recognizes that memories fade over time and another recognizes that justice delayed is justice denied; expeditious justice is the objective; the presumption strengthens with the length of the delay. (citations omitted) 62. When determining whether a delay has been inexcusable, the court should consider the issues raised by the case, the complexity of the issues, the explanation for the delay and all relevant surrounding circumstances. In considering whether the defendant has sustained prejudice, the court should consider the availability of witnesses, whether the evidence is largely documentary or based on the recollection of individuals, the efforts by the defendant to preserve its evidence and any other relevant consideration. (citation omitted)