The Applicant mother sought to restore Appeals of two interim parenting Orders granted by the Case Management Judge in the Court below.

The Applicant filed a Notice to Appeal a July 24, 2024 Order (the “July 2024 Order”) after the filing deadline. She did not apply to extend the time to appeal, and the Appeal was struck and deemed abandoned on January 3, 2025. She filed an Application to restore the Appeal nearly a year after the Order was granted, on July 14, 2025.

The Applicant then filed a Notice to Appeal for a subsequent December 13, 2024 Order (the “December 2024 Order”) within time, but failed to file her factum on time, even after being granted a two-week extension of the filing deadline. The Appeal was struck but not yet deemed abandoned. The Applicant filed her Application to restore the Appeal of the December 2024 Order on July 11, 2025.

Rules 14.47 and 14.65(3) of the Rules require an Application to restore an Appeal be returnable no later than six months after being deemed abandoned, which in this case would have required an Application to be brought on or before July 3, 2025. The six months creates a “line-in-the-sand”, after which the Court can presume prejudice to the Respondent if the Appeal is allowed to proceed. The Court noted that “it is not impossible for an appeal to be restored after six months has expired”, but the Court will consider a number of factors on a stricter basis, including an explanation for the delay, lack of prejudice to the Respondent, and arguable merit. When an Appeal has been filed but a deadline for filing materials missed, resulting in the Appeal being struck, as was the case for the December 2024 Order, the Court considers similar factors.

The Court decided that the Appeal of the July 2024 Order should not be reinstated. The Respondent was presumed to be prejudiced by the delay, and the Applicant failed to overcome that presumption. Although the Applicant cited emotional distress, legal complexity, and being mostly self-represented as reasons for the delay, the Court found these insufficient to justify the length of the delay. Additionally, she did not point to specific legal or factual errors in the original decision, making her Appeal unlikely to succeed.

For the December 2024 Order, the Applicant acted promptly to restore the Appeal and provided some explanation for her delays. However, and again, the Appeal was unlikely to succeed. The Case Management Judge’s findings, including the Applicant’s contempt of prior Orders and parental alienation, were supported by evidence and entitled to deference. Because of the evolving circumstances of the child, and the need for the parties to move to Trial and away from a continuing series of interlocutory Orders, it was found that restoring the Applicant’s Appeal would prejudice the Respondent and be inconsistent with the best interests of the child.