The Applicant, a unit owner in a condominium, filed an Originating Application against the Condominium Corporation and another resident. The Originating Application alleged failure to disclose financial documents, inadequate building maintenance, failure to install security cameras, discontinuation of heating to the Applicant’s unit, and harassment. However, the Applicant named the incorrect legal entities in the Originating Application. On March 18, 2024, the Chambers Judge granted an Order allowing the Applicant to amend the Originating Application and corresponding Affidavit to correctly name the Condominium Corporation (the Order). Pursuant to Rule 14.8(2)(iii), the Applicant had one month to file a Notice of Appeal of the Order. The Applicant, however, filed the Notice of Appeal on October 7, 2024.

The Court emphasized that extending the time limit to file an appeal is a discretionary decision guided by several factors. These include whether the applicant showed a bona fide intention to appeal when the right to appeal existed, whether the explanation provided excuses or justifies the delay, whether the delay caused prejudice to the other party, whether the applicant benefitted from the Judgment under appeal, and if there is a reasonable prospect of success. The Court noted that it may exercise its discretion to grant an extension if it serves the interests of justice, even if not all these criteria are satisfied.

In evaluating the relevant criteria, the Court found that the Applicant neither demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal the Order when the right to appeal existed, nor provided an adequate explanation to justify the delay. While the Applicant claimed a lack of understanding of the Rules, the Court, referencing Jutt Management Inc v Legends Condo Development Corp, 2024 ABCA 367, reiterated that even self-represented litigants are expected to familiarize themselves with and adhere to the Rules governing Court proceedings. Furthermore, the Court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success on Appeal, noting that the Order had granted the Applicant exactly what was requested, and no error or valid grounds for Appeal had been identified. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Appeal.