Rarotonga, 2010

simonshields@isthatlegal.ca

Online Lawyer

Most Popular
Contracts / Torts / Evidence / Limitations / Tenant Plus / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer / COVID Litigation
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / SMALL CLAIMS / SUPERIOR COURT / APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW

home / about / Little Friends Lefkada (Greece) / testimonials / E-Colleagues / Conditions of Use

Civil and
Administrative
Litigation
Intake

Affiliates
Canadian Animal Law

Time - Extending Time for Appeal II

. Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited v. Sun

In Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited v. Sun (Ont CA, 2021) the Court of Appeal set out the test for extending time for an appeal:
[7] The test for extending the time for an appeal is well-established. Four factors are to be considered, as set out in Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, 114 O.R. (3d) 636, at para. 15:
The test on a motion to extend time is well settled. The overarching principle is whether the “justice of the case” requires that an extension be given. Each case depends on its own circumstances, but the court is to take into account all relevant considerations, including:

(a) whether the moving party formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time period;

(b) the length of, and explanation for, the delay in filing;

(c) any prejudice to the responding parties, caused, perpetuated or exacerbated by the delay; and

(d) the merits of the proposed appeal. [Citations omitted.]
....

[16] For the sake of completeness, I will mention the third factor briefly, that is, prejudice to the responding party. There is no prejudice here of the type that would preclude an extension of time. The fact that the responding party may be delayed in enforcing its judgment, and that it will incur legal expenses responding to the appeal, is not the type of prejudice to which the third factor is directed. If it were otherwise, every respondent to a proposed appeal would be able to satisfy the prejudice factor. In my view, this case is distinguishable from Bobel v. Humecka, 2021 ONCA 757, on this very narrow point.
>. Echelon Environmental Inc. v. Glassdoor Inc.

In Echelon Environmental Inc. v. Glassdoor Inc. (Ont CA, 2021) the Court of Appeal briefly canvassed the factors to be considered when extending time to file an appeal:
[9] This court will extend the time to serve and file a Notice of Appeal if an extension is required by the justice of the case: 2363523 Ontario Inc. v. Nowack, 2018 ONCA 286, at para. 4. The court will generally consider the following factors:
1. Whether the appellant formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time period;

2. The length of delay in filing and the explanation for it;

3. Any prejudice that would be caused to the responding party by allowing the motion;

4. The merits of the proposed appeal.
See Howard v. Martin, 2014 ONCA 309, 42 R.F.L. (7th) 47, at para. 26; Leighton v. Best, 2014 ONCA 667, 20 C.B.R. (6th) 326, at para. 1.

[10] No one factor decides the outcome. All factors must be considered, but how they bear on what justice requires is context-specific: see Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, 114 O.R. (3d) 636, at para. 15; Monteith v. Monteith, 2010 ONCA 78, at para. 20.

....

[16] In general, this court considers only prejudice caused by the delay in filing a notice of appeal, not prejudice that could be caused by the outcome of the appeal: 40 Park Lane Circle v. Aiello, 2019 ONCA 451, at para. 6. ....


CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.