FARM CREDIT CANADA v WIEBE, 2026 ABCA 235

The Appellants defaulted on a loan secured against their livestock. After an Applications Judge quantified the debt owing to Farm Credit Canada (“Farm Credit”), the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal twelve days after the expiry of the Rule 6.14 appeal period and sought an extension of time to appeal pursuant to Rule 13.5. A Chambers Judge dismissed the Application.

The Appellants appealed that decision, while Farm Credit cross‑appealed on the basis that the issue was moot since the debt had been paid.

The Court first considered whether permission to appeal was required. The Court confirmed that Rule 14.5(1)(b) applies to pre-trial decisions respecting time periods or time limits, even where such decisions may affect substantive rights. A decision refusing to extend the time to appeal pursuant to Rule 13.5 is a pre-trial decision respecting a time limit and therefore requires permission to appeal.

The Court then considered the established factors governing an extension of time to appeal, including whether the applicant formed a bona fide intention to appeal, whether the delay was explained, whether prejudice would result, whether the applicant had taken the benefit of the Judgment, and whether the proposed appeal was reasonably arguable. The Court accepted that the Appellants intended to appeal, that serious personal circumstances affecting former counsel explained the delay, that the Respondent would suffer no serious prejudice, and that the Appellants had not taken any benefit from the delayed filing.

However, the Court held that the proposed Appeal had no reasonable chance of success. The Appellants argued that the amount owing should be reduced because they incurred expenses caring for the livestock after seizure, and they were sold for $22,000 despite an alleged agreement by a purchaser to pay $50,000. The Court held that those claims had not been advanced below and, in any event, the terms of the loan and security agreements excluded claims in set‑off, compensation, counterclaim, and improvident realization.

The Court concluded that the proposed Appeal was hopeless. The Appeal and Cross-Appeal were both dismissed with each party to bear its own costs.