The Applicants sought various relief including an extension of time to Appeal a scheduling Order. Schutz J.A. noted that pursuant to Rule 14.8(2), a Notice of Appeal must be filed within one month of the date of pronouncement of a Decision. Her Ladyship also noted that permission must be obtained to Appeal a scheduling Order pursuant to Rule 14.5.

At the outset, Schutz J.A. commented that the Applicant did not meet the test for permission to Appeal. However, since the Respondents did not raise that objection, Schutz J.A. went on to consider the merits of the Application for a time extension. In doing so, Her Ladyship rejected the Applicant’s argument that under Rule 14.8, the time to Appeal runs from the date of filling of the Order rather than the date of its pronouncement, based on the plain language of the Rule. Schutz J.A. also rejected the Applicant’s argument that the Order was not a scheduling Order. Her Ladyship concluded that an Appeal of the scheduling Order would have no chance of success, which was “dispositive of this Application”. As such, the Application was dismissed.