HAYDEN v ALBERTA (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD), 2026 ABCA 278

The Applicant applied to restore an Appeal which had been struck by operation of Rules 14.16(3) and 14.64(a) for failure to file the Appeal Record within the applicable deadline. Further, the Applicant challenged the enhanced costs award made in the underlying Application.

The Applicant had filed a Notice of Appeal and ordered the transcript the same day. However, the Applicant received the transcript only two days before the filing deadline. While the Applicant attempted to file the transcript before the deadline expired, it was rejected for non-compliance with formatting requirements. As the deadline had expired, the Appeal was struck by the Registrar pursuant to Rules 14.16(3) and 14.64(a).

Grosse J.A. confirmed the Court retains discretion to restore an appeal, having regard to several factors. Grosse J.A. considered whether the Appeal had arguable merit, the explanation for the defect or delay, the Applicant’s promptness in curing the defect, the Applicant’s intention to proceed, and any prejudice to the Respondent, including the length of delay.

The Court held that most of the factors weighed in favour of restoring the Appeal. The Applicant promptly applied to restore the Appeal and successfully filed the transcript later that month, demonstrating reasonable promptness in acting to cure the defect and a timely intention to proceed. Additionally, the Applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, as the transcript was received only two days after the deadline.

However, Grosse J.A. confirmed that once an Appeal has been struck pursuant to Rules 14.16 and 14.64, the Court must conduct a preliminary review of the merits. Appeal Justice Grosse found that the underlying Application was an attempt to relitigate issues that had already been decided in a previous Application. Grosse J.A. determined that the Appeal therefore lacked merit, and it was not in the interests of justice to restore it.

With respect to the Applicant’s challenge to the enhanced costs award made, Grosse J.A. noted that there are no appeals as of right on costs alone under Rule 14.5, and found no basis to interfere with the Award. The Court separately considered the costs of the Application to restore the Appeal. Justice Grosse noted that, pursuant to Rule 14.88, the successful party would ordinarily be entitled to costs on the same scale as the Order under appeal. However, Grosse J.A. found that the circumstances which justified enhanced costs in the underlying Application were not present in the Application to restore. Given the early stage of the Appeal and the Applicant’s efforts to correct the filing error, the Court ordered that each party bear their own costs.