The self-represented Applicant applied to restore her Appeal of the decision in Bonville v President's Choice Financial, 2024 ABKB 356 (Bonville). The Appeal was struck because it was not filed within the applicable time limit. However, before this Application was heard, there was a subsequent Decision that ordered the Applicant to pay Security for Costs, or her Action would be Struck. Following the Security for Costs Decision, the Court of King’s Bench struck the Applicant’s pleading and Judgment was granted to the Respondent.

Appeal Justice Fagnan noted that the Applicant failed to follow the prescribed steps for the Appeal, which may have been attributed to her self-represented status. The Court noted that under Rule 14.47, the primary consideration is the arguable merit of the Appeal. The threshold to establish arguable merit is very low.

The Court found that Bonville was essentially a pre-trial procedural decision because it did not make any final determination in the Action or grant Judgment to any party. Therefore, permission to Appeal under Rule 14.5 was required. Permission is generally granted if a serious question of importance was raised and had a reasonable chance of success. Fagnan J.A. found that the Appeal as formulated had no reasonable chance of success. The Applicant did not appeal the subsequent Decision and the deadlines to do so had passed.

The Court found that the Appeal would have no practical effect on the parties and there was no meaningful relief the Court could grant in the circumstances. Judgment had already been granted to the Respondents. Fagnan J.A. determined that the Applicant had not met the very low threshold to establish arguable merit under Rule 14.47. Fagnan J.A. also noted that the discretion to restore an appeal should be used sparingly and that the interests of justice would not be served by restoring the Appeal. The Application was therefore dismissed. Appeal Justice Fagnan invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c), and the Court prepared the resulting Order.