Case information

Civil procedure — Time — Extension of time — Whether the Court of Appeal gave sufficient weight to the materials filed in support of the application for an extension of time — Whether the Court of Appeal ignored the evidence detailing the reasons why the notice of appeal was not within the 30 day limitation period — Whether the Court of Appeal relied exclusively on the respondents’ view of matters — If so, whether it erred in doing so — Whether the Court of Appeal based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it — Whether the Court of Appeal’s finding of the applicants’ appeal had no merit — Whether the Court of Appeal decision fails to differentiate the human rights matter from the Charter claim — Whether the Court of Appeal failed to assess the merits of the grounds for appeal or whether there was an arguable case to be made.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants applied for leave to have Dr. Ayangma, a non lawyer, to represent them in two legal proceedings they had brought before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Although Holmes J. acknowledged that the court had discretion to allow representation by a non-lawyer based on the court’s assessment of the interests of justice, she found that Dr. Ayangma’s participation in this appeal was not likely to further the interests of justice. The applicants applied for an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal. The motion was filed approximately 18 months late. The extension of time was denied. Dr. Ayangma was granted leave to present oral arguments on appeal. On the assumption that the decision was open to appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.