The Applicants sought an Order for finding the Respondent in Contempt of Court. It was largely dismissed. The Applicants filed a Civil Notice of Appeal of the contempt decision but asked the Case Management Officer (“CMO”) to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the outcome of further applications. The CMO concluded it was premature to hold the appeal in abeyance as the Appeal Record was not due until January 2, 2025, but told the Applicants they could renew the request by December 2, 2024. Counsel did not properly diarize the file. Consequently, the Applicants failed to renew the request, missed a filing deadline, and the Appeal was struck on January 3, 2025. The Applicants sought to restore the Appeal, pursuant to Rule 14.47

The Court holistically considered the following factors: (a) arguable merit to the Appeal; (b) explanation for the defect or delay which caused the Appeal to be struck; (c) reasonable promptness in moving to cure the defect and have the Appeal restored to the list; (d) continuing intention to proceed with the Appeal; and (e) lack of prejudice to the Respondent, including length of the delay.

The Court concluded that the Appeal had merit, and that the mere slip or inadvertence by counsel ought not to prevent the restoration. Further, the Court found that counsel moved promptly to cure the defect and to have the Appeal restored, and that the Applicants intend to proceed with the Appeal. The Court did not consider the fact that the Applicants applied to suspend filing deadlines pending the outcome of further applications as indicative of the Applicants’ intention not to proceed with the Appeal. Further, the Court concluded that there was no prejudice to the Respondent that would militate against restoring the Appeal.

Thus, the Appeal was restored.