it was only filed marginally late due
to an administrative error.
Justice Pardu reached this result because she could not find
"any scintilla" of merit to the appeal. Her decision thus
demonstrates the importance of pointing to some merit on motions to
extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal. It is also is
a cautionary tale about preparing notices of appeal, as the
extremely general nature of the appellant's notice of appeal in
this case left Justice Pardu without any basis for assessing the
potential merit in the appeal. She wrote:
 The motion judge's decision was released on October 31,
2014. According to 125's notice of motion, as a result of an
administrative error, no effort to file the notice of appeal was
made until December 10, 2014. It was not accepted for filing
because it was defective. The notice of appeal states the following
grounds of appeal:
The court below made palpable and
overriding errors of fact;
The court below made errors of mixed
fact and law;
The court below made errors of law;
Such further and other grounds as
counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.
 As Gillese J.A. observed in Enbridge Gas Distribution
Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, 114 O.R. (3d) 636, at para.
The test on a motion to extend time is well-settled. The
overarching principle is whether the "justice of the
case" requires that an extension be given. Each case depends
on its own circumstances, but the court is to take into account all
relevant considerations, including:
whether the moving party formed a
bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time
the length of, and explanation for,
the delay in filing;
any prejudice to the responding
parties, caused, perpetuated or exacerbated by the delay; and
the merits of the proposed
 Here, the delay is short, an explanation has been provided
for the delay, and there is no prejudice to Pet Valu.
However, I am unable to find any scintilla suggesting
that the appeal has merit. The affidavit filed in support of the
motion to extend time is silent on the issue of the merits. The
notice of appeal is so general that I am unable to construct any
basis for an arguable appeal from the motion judge's factual
findings. Very little would be required to show that there is some
basis for an appeal in these circumstances, but I can find
nothing. [Emphasis added.]
 The motion judge accepted the appellant's argument that
the contract required the respondent to share volume rebates with
its franchisees, but made the purely factual finding that the
respondent had in fact shared all of the volume rebates with the
franchisees, subject only to a reasonable markup. This factual
conclusion will be entitled to a high degree of deference. There is
no hint of anything in the material before me which undermines that
finding. I conclude therefore that the appeal does not have merit.
Under these circumstances, the justice of the case does not require
granting an extension.
 For these reasons, the motion to extend time to file the
notice of appeal is dismissed. ...
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).