What are the grounds for dismissing an action for delay?

Turning now to the second ground for dismissing an action for delay, the following observations in Langenecker v. Sauvé are instructive: The second type of case that will justify an order dismissing for delay has three characteristics. The delay must be inordinate, inexcusable and such that it gives rise to a substantial risk that a fair trial of the issues in the litigation will not be possible because of the delay…. The inordinance of the delay is measured simply by reference to the length of time from the commencement of the proceeding to the motion to dismiss…. The requirement that the delay be "inexcusable" requires a determination of the reasons for the delay and an assessment of whether those reasons afford an adequate explanation for the delay.… [E]xplanations that are "reasonable and cogent" or "sensible and persuasive" will excuse the delay at least to the extent that an order dismissing the action would be inappropriate. In assessing the explanations offered, the court will consider not only the credibility of those explanations and the explanations offered for individual parts of the delay, but also the overall delay and the effect of the explanations considered as a whole…. The third requirement is directed at the prejudice caused by the delay to the defence's ability to put its case forward for adjudication on the merits. Prejudice is inherent in long delays. Memories fade and fail, witnesses become unavailable, and documents and other potential exhibits are lost. The longer the delay, the stronger the inference of prejudice to the defence case flowing from that delay.... In addition to the prejudice inherent in lengthy delays, a long delay can cause case-specific prejudice.[5]