This was an Appeal under the Family Law Act in which the Appellant filed, but did not timely serve, a Notice of Appeal. The Court held that Part 12 of the Rules applies to Family Law Act appeals by virtue of Rule 12.2, and that Rule 12.61 requires both filing and service of the Notice of Appeal within one month. Failure to serve within that period meant the Appeal was not properly commenced.

The Court confirmed it had Jurisdiction under Rule 13.5 to extend the service deadline in Rule 12.61, as there is no express prohibition on extending that time. However, the Court found that although the Appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, there was no adequate explanation for the late service. Self-representation, reliance on a family member, and misunderstanding of the Rules did not justify non-compliance.

The Court found serious prejudice arising from delay, particularly given the family law context, the nearly two-year lapse since the decision appealed from, and the Appellant’s failure to comply with payment and support obligations in the absence of a stay. The Court also held that the proposed Appeal lacked a reasonably arguable chance of success, as the remaining ground concerned a finding of adult interdependent partnership, a question of mixed fact and law reviewed on a deferential standard, with no palpable and overriding error identified.

As the extension was denied, the Appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Rule 12.61. Issues of a Stay or Security for Costs were moot. The Court directed that Costs be addressed under Rule 10.33, payable to the Respondent.