The Applicants, (the “Paquins”) applied for an extension to file their Notice of Appeal. They had attempted to file their Notice of Appeal about 25 days beyond the date prescribed by Rule 14.8(2)(a)(iii), which was one month after the date of the Order the Paquins sought to appeal. Justice Strekaf noted that, in such Applications, the Court considers whether: (i) there was an excuse or justification for the delay; (ii) the other side is prejudiced by the delay; (iii) the Applicant has not taken the benefits of the Judgment from which Appeal is sought; and (iv) the Appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

Here, the Applicants’ lawyer stated that he had incorrectly diarized the date of Appeal due to inadvertence, but that the Applicants had a bona fide intention to Appeal the Order. The Court held that a mistake by counsel cannot constitute a reasonable explanation for the delay. However, there was no prejudice to the Respondents and the Appeal raised an arguable issue. As such, the extension of time to Appeal was granted.