The Applicant sought leave to Appeal the dismissal of his Application to restore an Appeal which had been deemed abandoned for failing to meet filing deadlines. The Appeal concerned the dismissal of an Application to extend the time to Appeal the Order of a Master.

Pursuant to Rule 14.5, permission to Appeal a Decision to a full panel of the Court of Appeal may be granted where the Decision at issue: a) raises a question of general importance which on its own deserves panel review; b) rests on a reviewable and material issue of law worthy of panel review; c) involves the unreasonable exercise of discretion which had a meaningful effect on the outcome of the Decision and the outcome is worthy of panel review; or d) rests on a palpable and overriding error of important facts affecting the Order made and the Order is worthy of panel review. Justice Crighton noted that permission to Appeal is rarely granted where the Decision under Appeal is discretionary, and particularly where timing or logistics are at issue. Justice Crighton further noted that the reiteration of initial submissions or re-arguing the interpretation of the record does not justify a full panel review.

For the first time in the proceedings, the Applicant raised the issue of a language barrier, arguing that because the materials and his submissions were in English, he could not adequately advance his position in his Application to restore his Appeal. Justice Crighton permitted the Applicant to make oral submissions on the leave Application in French, but found that there was no material difference between the arguments advanced in French, and those initially presented in English in the Application to restore the Appeal.

Justice Crighton also noted that the Applicant asserted that an error in law was made, warranting the consideration of a full panel, but the Applicant was unable to state what that error was.

Justice Crighton found that there were no issues of general importance arising from the circumstances in which the Applicant asserted a material breach of his employment contract, but the record disclosed that the one year term of the contract had expired according to its terms and was not renewed.

Lastly, Justice Crighton noted that the Applicant's demonstrated litigation history was that of missing filing deadlines and failing to pay Court mandated Costs awards, and that there was nothing to indicate that conduct would change.

The Application for leave to Appeal was dismissed.