18. Counsel says that the delay is not inexcusable. It is justified by the impecuniosity of the plaintiffs. And reference was made to the decision of Seaton, J. in the leading case of Irving v. Irving et al (1982) 1982 CanLII 475 (BC CA), 38 B.C.L.R. 318 (C.A.). I observe here that impecuniosity is one of the many factors or circumstances to be considered. However, the evidence is that during the delay the plaintiff was involved in at least three other actions; also that it only became a factor in July, 1996. Further, and in any event, I would not describe the delay as one forced on the plaintiff by impecuniosity.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.