AKBAR v NIELSEN

The Applicant appealed a Costs Award resulting from revocation of a Restraining Order. That Appeal was struck pursuant to Rule 14.54, as they failed to obtain permission to appeal within the applicable timelines. The Applicant then brought Applications seeking to restore the Appeal and for permission to appeal.

Justice Fagnan noted that, in considering an Application to restore an appeal under Rule 14.65, the Court must consider whether it would be in the interests of justice to restore the appeal, and whether there is merit to the appeal itself.

In addressing the question of whether it would be in the interests of justice to restore the Appeal, the Applicant submitted that their failure to properly seek permission was due to a lack of legal experience and a disability. While these points were not disputed, the issue of merit was still live.

The Court noted that Judges have wide discretion in granting costs awards, and while the Applicant believed the Court had acted unreasonably in awarding costs, they had not established that the Appeal would have any practical utility or address any issues of importance.

The Application was dismissed.