Law360 Canada ( February 14, 2025, 9:53 AM EST) -- Appeal by Tataryn and Rajan, appellants, from dismissal of their action due to delay. They argued that the motion judge erred in concluding that they failed to comply with s. 29.1(1) of Class Proceeding Act (“CPA”). The appellants were representative plaintiffs in a class proceeding commenced against the respondent in relation to the appellants’ personal injuries from motor vehicle accidents. The appellant Tataryn commenced the proceeding with a notice of application. Later, there were amendments and a consent order converting the application to an action. Tataryn delivered a statement of claim. Dates were set for the exchange of materials and the hearing of the respondent's first motion to strike the statement of claim. Then followed multiple fresh as amended statement of claim motions by Tataryn. The motion judge heard the respondent's compliance motion and Tataryn's motion to deliver the amended amended fresh as amended statement of claim and to add Rajan as a plaintiff. The motion judge struck portions of the statement of claim and dismissed the remainder of the appellants' motion. He granted the appellant’s leave to add Rajan as a plaintiff. The Divisional Court dismissed appellants' motion for leave to appeal the motion judge's order....