GILL v ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD, 2026 ABCA 277

The Applicants sought to restore an Appeal under Rule 14.47 after it had been struck for failure to file a Factum on time. The Applicants, who were self-represented, attempted to file a Factum before the deadline, but it was rejected for formatting deficiencies.

The Court dismissed the Application.

The Court confirmed the test for restoring an Appeal is whether it is in the interests of justice to restore the Appeal, having regard to factors, including: (a) whether the Appeal had arguable merit; (b) the explanation for the defect or delay that caused the Appeal to be struck; (c) the Applicants’ reasonable promptness in curing any defects; (d) the Applicant’s intention to proceed with the Appeal; and (e) any prejudice to the Respondent.

The Court found that some of these factors favoured restoration. The Applicants had demonstrated an intention to proceed with the Appeal, provided a reasonable explanation for the missed deadline, and restoration would cause no prejudice to the Respondent.

However, the Appeal lacked arguable merit and, most notably, the Applicants failed to take meaningful steps to correct the defect that led to the Appeal being struck. More than eight months after their Factum was rejected, the Applicants had still not filed a compliant Factum, despite being expressly directed by the Registry to do so.

The Court emphasized that, while there is room for tolerance of honest mistakes and misunderstandings, Rule 1.1(2) confirms that the Rules remain binding on all litigants, including self-represented parties. The Court held that a party seeking to restore a struck Appeal must diligently address the procedural defects that caused the Appeal to be struck. The Applicants' “ambivalent approach to compliance” of the Rules outweighed the factors favouring restoration, and the Court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to restore the Appeal.