This was an Application seeking permission to appeal a Decision denying an extension of time to Appeal.

The Applicant owned a condominium unit where the Condominium Corporation (the “Corporation”) initiated renovation work. The Applicant continued to pay monthly fees with post-dated cheques that did not reflect the increased amount to cover renovation costs. The Corporation rejected the cheques as insufficient and initiated a foreclosure Action against the Applicant. The Corporation sought Summary Judgment, and was awarded $2,499.12 plus reasonable solicitor-client Costs. The formal Order was issued on December 2, 2022. Pursuant to Rule 6.14(1), the Applicant had 10 days to file a Notice of Appeal of the Decision, which he failed to do. Consequently, the Appeal period expired December 12, 2022.

In February 2023, an Assessment Officer determined reasonable solicitor-client Costs and disbursements, which was not disputed. Following this, the Applicant attempted to stay enforcement of the Costs Order, but this request was denied. The Applications Judge overseeing the matter instructed the Applicant to file an Application seeking an extension of time to Appeal. In March 2023, the Applicant submitted an irregular Application, which was adjourned sine die. Despite receiving detailed instructions on the proper submission process, the Applicant did not rectify the filing until March 2024. The Chambers Judge dismissed the Application due to the significant delay between the Appeal deadline and the Application hearing, and determined that the Appeal was unlikely to succeed.

In April 2024, the Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the Chambers Judge’s Decision. The Court’s Case Management Officer instructed the Applicant to Apply for permission to Appeal, which was submitted in May 2024. The Court clarified that since the Appeal involved a substantive Decision and Costs, permission under Rule 14.5(1)(e) was not required as it applies to a Decision regarding a Costs award only. However, because the value of the substantive Decision was less than $25,000 excluding Costs, permission was necessary under Rule 14.5(1)(g). The Court emphasized that several factors may be relevant to an Application for permission to Appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(g), and noted the importance of assessing whether the Appeal has arguable merit and raises a significant legal question worthy of consideration by a panel of three Judges.

The Court determined that the Applicant failed to show that the denial to extend time to Appeal constituted a legal error substantial enough to warrant review by a panel. The Court emphasized that the short timelines set in the Rules are for good reasons, and an extension of time requires exceptional circumstances in cases of significant delay. The Applicant claimed the reason for delay was because he worked abroad and was unaware of the strict Appeal deadlines as a self-represented litigant. However, the Court noted that the Applicant was informed multiple times of the proper procedures but failed to comply, which it deemed an insufficient justification for delaying over a year. As a result, the Application was dismissed.