The Applicants, Michael David Coe (“Mr. Coe”), 1719091 Alberta Ltd, Clearwater Radiator Inc., and Edgewood Products Inc. (the “Corporate Applicants”), sought an extension of time to appeal an Order restricting the Applicants from initiating steps in the lower Court Action (the “Restricted Access Order”). Their Application failed.

Mr. Coe was the owner of the Corporate Applicants. 1719091 Alberta Ltd. fell into arrears on debt repayment. On August 9, 2022, ATB Financial commenced the Action below against the Applicants seeking to collect on the debt. The Applicants were noted in default on November 8, 2022. On December 16, 2022, the Court below granted ATB Financial a Consent Judgment against the Applicants in the amount of $1,464,241.94. The Consent Judgment was not appealed.

Attempts to repay the debt involved the use of “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (“OPCA”) strategies, which were rejected by the lender, ATB Financial.

On July 30, 2024, the Court of King’s Bench concluded that the Applicants had engaged in litigation misconduct, finding that Mr. Coe was “a participant in a broader OPCA-based enterprise or endeavor with a financial basis and objective: to use pseudolaw non-law to get money, eliminate debt, and/or frustrate debt collection”: ATB Financial v 1719091 Alberta Ltd, 2024 ABKB 461 at para 27 (the “Restricted Access Reasons”).

As a preliminary matter, the Court noted that Mr. Coe brought the Applications in his personal capacity and on behalf of the Corporate Applicants. He was not a lawyer and therefore could not represent a corporation pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8. However, Rule 2.23(4) gives the Court discretion to grant a right of audience to any agent who is not a lawyer, to speak on behalf of a corporation. Mr. Coe was therefore granted a “limited right of audience for these applications”.

Pursuant to Rule 14.8(2)(a), a notice of appeal must be filed within one month after the date of the decision being appealed, unless an enactment provides otherwise or the nature of the appeal first requires permission to appeal. The Restricted Access Order was granted on July 30, 2024, so the Applicants were required to file a notice of appeal by August 30, 2024. However, the Application to extend the time to appeal was filed on July 14, 2025, more than ten months after the deadline.

Rule 14.37(2)(c) allows a single appeal Judge to extend the time to appeal, when the Applicants show, among other things, that the failure to appeal was by reason of some special circumstance which excuses or justifies the failure, and that the appeal would have a reasonable chance of success if allowed to proceed.

Mr. Coe claimed that his status as a self-represented litigant caused the delay. It was found that the Applicants were provided with “measured guidance” from the Court below to “consult with a lawyer ... prior to seeking leave to take steps” in the Action. The Applicants had the benefit of legal counsel early in the Action, and did not assert an inability to access legal advice to pursue an Appeal. Moreover, the Court noted that deadlines under the Rules apply equally to self-represented and represented litigants, citing Rules 1.1(2) and 1.2.

The Applicants failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the required timeframe or special circumstances excusing the delay. Their arguments lacked merit, including claims about “authentication symbols”, alleged Charter and Alberta Bill of Rights violations, and procedural unfairness.

Ultimately, the Applicants did not show that their proposed appeal had a reasonable chance of success, and the interests of justice were not served by granting the Applicants an extension of time to appeal the Restricted Access Reasons.