The Application concerned an Appeal from the decision of an Applications Judge which granted an Order backdating the Respondent’s Statement of Claim by one day to fit within the limitation period. The Appellant argued the Applications Judge erred because the Respondent had failed to meet the prerequisites of Rule 1.5 and had caused the Appellant irreparable harm. The Respondent took the position that the Court had inherent jurisdiction to make their decision and that the Appellant experienced no prejudice as a result.

As the Application was an Appeal from an Applications Judge pursuant to Rule 6.14, the Court noted that the Application would be heard de novo. Justice Jugnauth held that while Rule 1.5 can be used to cure issues of non-compliance with requirements, the present case was not a situation where Rule 1.5 could be invoked. The Respondent did not seek to cure their non-compliance within reasonable time, and the effect of backdating the Statement of Claim was significantly prejudicial to the Appellant, as it deprived them of the right to claim statutory immunity. As such, Rule 1.5 could not appropriately justify the backdating of the Statement of Claim.

The Respondent argued that Rule 1.4 was applicable as it permits the Court to extend the time for doing anything in the proceeding unless specifically limited by the Rules. Jugnauth J. held that Rule 1.4 does not allow the Court to override the limitation periods provided by the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 without express legislative permission to do so.

The Appeal was granted, and the Applications Judge’s decision was overturned.