a cause of action. It creates a procedural regime by which a representative plaintiff is allowed to assert a cause of action on behalf
of others with similar interests. It makes little sense to suspend
the limitation period relating to the cause of action but impose
a limitation period on the procedure by which that action may
proceed. Second, prohibiting a subsequent class proceeding may
hinder access to justice and promotion of judicial economy, two of
the main public policy objectives behind the Act. Third, it would
be unfair to take this potentially beneficial procedural regime
from a putative class member who has not been previously been
present before the court and has not had any ability to determine
the course of the earlier litigation.
 I would also note that in Naylor v. Coloplast Canada Corp.,
 O.J. No. 923, 2016 ONSC 1294 (S.C.J.), Perell J. contemplated that notice of discontinuance to putative class members in
a class proceeding would provide them an opportunity to consider
alternatives including starting a new class action.
 It follows, then, that dismissal of this class proceeding for
delay would have substantive affect only on Mr. Smith. A caveat
to this may be the impact, if any, of the ultimate limitation period
of 15 years prescribed by the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002,
c. 24, Sch. B. Although the Ontario Court of Appeal in Coulson v.
Citigroup Global Markets Canada Inc.,  O.J. No. 717, 2012
ONCA 108 expressed its “grave doubts” that the ultimate limitation period would resume retroactive to the date of suspension
of the limitation period, it left determination of that issue to
a future case requiring its resolution.
Conclusion on applicable test
 In the circumstances of this case, although there may be
different legal tests prescribed as noted above, the practical effect
of the delay in this case renders the tests largely the same. There
can be no doubt that the delay in this proceeding is inordinate. It
therefore falls to the plaintiff to provide a reasonable explanation
for the delay. There is a presumption of prejudice from a delay of
this length that the plaintiff must rebut. The onus rests entirely
with the plaintiff except with respect to proof of actual prejudice
alleged by the defendants.
Explanation for the delay
 The plaintiff has offered several reasons for the delay
which he says, taken together, provide a reasonable explanation.