The Applicants applied to appeal a decision by a Chambers Judge to dismiss an appeal from the decision of an Applications Judge dismissing the Appellants’ Action against the Respondents for long delay under Rule 4.33(2) (the “Appeal”).

It was uncontroversial that by May 22, 2021, three years had passed without a significant advance in the Action. The Appellants argued that Section 22(2) of the Interpretation Act (the “Act”) extended the three-year period under Rule 4.33 because May 22, 2021 fell on a Saturday, and their Affidavit of Records served on May 25, 2021, should be treated as timely. They also contended that the Respondents’ alternative Application for Summary Dismissal constituted participation in the Action, justifying its continuation under Rule 4.33(2)(b).

The Court held that Section 22(2) of the Act did not extend the three-year period under Rule 4.33. Section 22(2) applies only when an enactment requires an act to be done at a specific office or place that is closed on the relevant day. The Appellants could have served their Affidavit of Records by email or fax on or before May 22, 2021, and Section 22(2) was therefore inapplicable.

The Court found that the Respondents’ alternative Application for Summary Dismissal did not constitute participation in the Action such that continuation was justified. It further found that the Chambers Judge reasonably concluded that the foundational goals of the Rules were best served by dismissing the Action.

Finding no errors in principle or unreasonable exercise of discretion, the Chambers Judge’s decision was upheld and the Appeal dismissed.