Cameron Corporation (“Cameron”) appealed a Decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (the “DAB”) approving the installation of a billboard sign. The Notice of Appeal was filed, but was never served on the DAB. The Appeal Digest was not filed within 15 weeks, and the Appeal was struck by the Registrar under Rule 530.5(4). Cameron applied to restore the Appeal.

Justice Slatter stated that in deciding whether to restore an Appeal that has been struck, the Court must consider all relevant factors, including:

(a)    Whether there was a continuing intention to prosecute the Appeal, notwithstanding the inactivity;

(b)   The length of and reason for the delay;

(c)    Whether the Applicant moved diligently to restore the Appeal;

(d)   The merits of the Appeal; and

(e)   Any prejudice to the other parties, and whether the prejudice could be ameliorated by costs or otherwise.

The Court found that Cameron’s explanations for inactivity were inadequate. Additionally, a parallel Appeal addressing the same issue relating to the installation of a billboard sign was struck under Rule 530.5(4) two months prior to the striking of Cameron’s current Appeal. Justice Slatter commented that the first striking was ample warning to the Appellant that this Appeal must be perfected in accordance with the Rules. Further, the Court concluded that restoring the Appeal would prejudice the DAB because an Appeal from the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board would operate as a stay of the installation permit which would result in revenue loss. The Application was dismissed.