The Applicant applied for an extension of time to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.37, and for permission to appeal a consent Judgment under Rule 14.5 on the basis that they were not capable of consenting to Judgment at the time it was entered.

The Court reviewed the relevant case law and noted that the test for whether to grant an extension of time required the Applicant to demonstrate that there was a bona fide intention to appeal when the right existed, provide an explanation for the delay, and demonstrate that the Appeal has a reasonable chance of succeeding. In applying the test to the Applicant, Justice Fagnan noted that the Applicant was unable to demonstrate any intention to advance an Appeal during the applicable appeal period, and did not communicate an intention to appeal to the Respondent until a month after the appeal period had expired.

The Court went on to note that a consent Judgment can only be set aside in exceptional circumstances; such as when the Appeal raises an important question of law or precedent or when there is a risk of undue prejudice. The Applicant’s position was largely centered around their assertion that they were unable to take necessary steps to advance an Appeal due to mental health issues. Although the Court recognized that there was no dispute that the Applicant had struggles with mental health in the past, they were unable to provide any evidence of incapacity at the relevant time periods, and rather the Court was provided with information that indicated the Applicant’s mental heath had improved prior to the relevant time periods.

The Court ultimately dismissed the Application due to the Applicant’s inability to establish that any of the necessary criteria had been met to permit an extension of time to apply for permission to appeal the consent Judgment.