What is the test to extend the time for delivery of a jury notice?

Before defining the test to be applied, it is useful to consider the case law that was well-recognized before Dunn v. Bederman. As a starting point, it must be recognized that the right to a trial by jury is an important right and one that will not be denied without cogent reason. [See Note 8 below] Many of the cases refer to three requirements to justify exercising a discretion to extend the time for delivery of a jury notice: (i) the failure to deliver was inadvertent; (ii) the delay is not unconscionable; and (iii) there is not real prejudice to the other party. However, the lines are often blurred between these three factors. In particular, in my view, it is not strictly necessary for the moving party to show inadvertence of counsel, but the reasons for the delay may be a relevant factor in determining whether a delay is unconscionable. In essence, there are two factors to be considered: the nature of the delay (including the length of the delay and the reasons for it); and whether granting leave would re sult in prejudice to the other side.