The Applicant sought an Order Extending the Time to Appeal, and a Stay of the Order under Appeal based on complaints about the process that preceded entry of the Order. Both were granted.

In morning Chambers, Romaine J. granted the Respondent an order to appoint counsel to the parties’ children. The Respondent, as the successful party, did not prepare the order, contrary to Rule 9.2. Four months after the order was pronounced, the Respondent attended Court and advised a Clerk that the Applicant’s counsel had refused to draft the order, which was untrue. Justice Romaine prepared and signed the order, which occurred after the three-month period set out in Rule 9.5(2) expired. The Applicant also alleged that the contents of the order were inconsistent with what had been initially pronounced.

The Court found that the Applicant met the six criteria to extend the deadline to file an appeal. The Applicant moved expeditiously to respond to an unexpected development when Romaine J. signed an order after the three-month period. Further, the Applicant would have immediately appealed the Order had it contained the terms introduced by Romaine J.

With respect to the Application for a Stay of the Order pending Appeal, the Court held that Romaine J.’s lack of jurisdiction to sign the order after the three-month period presented a serious issue to be determined on Appeal, and the likelihood of success was high. Accordingly, the Application for a Stay was also granted. The Court invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c).