Background Facts:
Walter Speckling had filed an initial factum that was deemed incomprehensible, which delayed the progress of the case. He was ordered to file an amended factum, which was eventually submitted on May 30, 2024. The respondent, Local 76, sought an extension to file its own factum, as its counsel faced illness and technical difficulties that prevented timely filing. The factum was served to the other parties but missed the filing deadline at the court registry by one day.

Walter’s brother, Bernardus Speckling, who had his own previous disputes with the union, attempted to act as an agent for Walter throughout the case. Bernardus made unfounded allegations of corruption and unethical behavior against the union’s counsel, which the court rejected as scandalous.

Legal Issues:
The key issue was whether the court should grant Local 76 an extension to file its factum. Additionally, the court considered whether Bernardus Speckling should be allowed to represent Walter in court, despite not being a party or a lawyer.

Court’s Ruling:
Justice Griffin granted the extension for Local 76, ruling that there was no prejudice to Walter Speckling. Bernardus was denied the right to act as an agent due to conflicts of interest and unreasonable conduct.

Costs/Awards:
No specific costs or monetary awards were mentioned.