document driven and that all relevant documents have been preserved; or that the recollection of witnesses may be adequately
refreshed by reference to statements or discovery evidence
already given by them. If the plaintiff is able to rebut the presumption of prejudice, the court may consider case specific prejudice resulting from the delay and proved by the defendant.
 In the end, the court must find the appropriate balance
between the plaintiff’s desire to proceed with the case on its merits, and the defendant’s entitlement to a fair and efficient trial.
The defendants’ motion for dismissal for delay
 That a class proceeding may be dismissed for delay is spe-
cifically contemplated by s. 29(4) of the Act. Specifically, it pro-
vides as follows:
29(4) In dismissing a proceeding for delay or in approving a discontinuance,
abandonment or settlement, the court shall consider whether notice should
be given under section 19 and whether any notice should include,
(a) an account of the conduct of the proceeding;
(b) a statement of the result of the proceeding; and
(c) a description of any plan for distributing settlement funds.
 There is no other provision in the Act dealing with dismissal for delay. However, s. 35 of the Act incorporates by reference
the rules of court, known today as the Rules of Civil Procedure,
R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”). The defendants have
advanced rules 24.01( 1) and (2) in conjunction with rule 48.14
as grounds for their motion.
 Rule 24.01( 1) provides that a defendant who is not in
default under the rules or an order of the court may move to have
an action dismissed for delay where the plaintiff has failed,
among other things, to have noted in default any defendant who
has failed to deliver a statement of defence or to set the action
down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings.
 Although not specifically addressed by the parties, there
was apparent agreement that the plaintiff had failed in at least
one of these two respects.
 The principles that apply on a motion to dismiss an
action for delay under rule 24.01( 1) were set out by the Ontario
Court of Appeal in Langenecker v. Sauvé,  O.J. No. 5777,
2011 ONCA 803 and summarized nicely in Sickinger v. Krek
(2016), 132 O.R. (3d) 548,  O.J. No. 3092, 2016 ONCA 459
[at paras. 29 and 30]:
The principles that apply on a motion to dismiss an action for delay were set
out by this court in Langenecker v. Sauve, 2011 ONCA 803, 286 O.A.C. 268.