The Appellant, Mr. Parsley, applied for an extension of time pursuant to Rule 14.37(1) to appeal a Decision pronounced on January 15, 2018 and reduced to a formal Order on March 8, 2018, and to stay the Order pursuant to Rule 14.48(b). The Decision involved a change in a parenting arrangement schedule as well as directions relating to back payments and partner support payments.

Watson J.A. noted the “multi-factorial test” that must be satisfied for an extension of time. In so doing, Watson J.A. observed that “the overarching objective is to serve the interests of justice”, and that where success is unlikely, an extension of time will typically not be granted.

The Respondent argued that the extension of time should not be permitted as the Appeal could have been filed before the form of Order from the Court of Queen’s Bench was settled. Watson J.A. noted that the approach taken by the Appellant should not be viewed strictly. In addition, Watson J.A. found that the Appellant intended to move the Appeal promptly and had taken steps to ensure the Appeal was heard within the same timeframe as if it had been initiated in time. Accordingly, the Respondent had not been significantly prejudiced because the time for hearing the Appeal had not been significantly delayed. Justice Watson granted an extension of time to file the Appeal.

Watson J.A. considered the Stay Application, and noted that the test for such relief required the Applicant to satisfy the Court that an arguable issue to be determined on Appeal exists; that the Applicant “will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted”; and that the balance of convenience favours granting a Stay. Having regard to the family law context in which the Application arose, Watson J.A. did not grant a Stay of the Order.