BY THE COURT: — Beginning in 2005, Mr. Stokker and
Ms. Storoschuk were in a romantic relationship. Throughout
their relationship, the parties were involved in a number of
business transactions. Disagreements emerged over land and
money. In 2007, Mr. Stokker, the appellant, sued Ms. Storoschuk
and her corporation, 1641516 Ontario Inc., the respondents.
Since then, the appellant’s lawsuit has languished. It was dismissed administratively twice for delay and then reinstated on
consent. Three court-ordered timetables imposed on the appellant were not met.
 In December 2015, the action had, once again, been
removed from the list. The respondents, unaware of this,
brought a motion under rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 to have the appellant’s action dismissed for delay. The motion was adjourned for a short time. On
the return date, March 17, 2016, the appellant was not called
upon to show cause as to why his action should not be dismissed.
Instead, the parties agreed to a fourth timetable, as well as a
consent order under rule 48.14(4). The timetable set out a series
of completion dates that the appellant would have to meet to
ready the matter for trial. Clause 3 of the order provided that,
“pursuant to Rule 48.14(1), the Registrar shall dismiss this
action for delay with costs unless the action has been restored to
the trial list on or before August 18, 2016”.
 The appellant was late in performing some of the steps in
the fourth timetable, but managed to complete the required
tasks and to bring a rule 48.11(b) motion to reinstate the action
before the August 18, 2016 deadline. The respondents opposed
the motion, but the master reinstated the action to the trial list.
The respondents appealed to a single judge of the Superior
Court of Justice and the appeal was allowed. The appellant now
comes before us, arguing that the appeal judge erred in law in
allowing the appeal. We agree with the appellant. The order
reinstating the action should not have been set aside.
 The parties agree that each level of court applied the
proper legal test for restoring an action. In Nissar v. Toronto
Transit Commission (2013), 115 O.R. (3d) 713,  O.J. No.
2553, 2013 ONCA 361, at para. 31, this court said:
[T]he applicable test is conjunctive: a plaintiff bears the burden of demon-
strating that there is an acceptable explanation for the delay in the litiga-
tion, and that, if the action was allowed to proceed, the defendant would
suffer no non-compensable prejudice.
(Emphasis in original)
 The appeal judge held that the master erred in applying
the first leg of the test by not considering the overall delay from