Issue: Application by Questor Technology Inc. to extend the time for appealing a contempt decision.

Key Points:

• Background:

  • The contempt ruling (June 28, 2024) held three individual respondents (Stagg, Nelson, and Bouchard) in contempt of court but did not find their company, Emission RX Ltd., in contempt.
  • Questor initially chose not to appeal but reconsidered after receiving clarification from the chambers justice in August 2024, confirming that Emission RX was not found in contempt.

• Legal Test for Extension of Time to Appeal:

  • The court applied principles from Cairns v Cairns (1931):
    1. Bona fide intention to appeal while the right existed.
    2. Sufficient explanation for the delay.
    3. Absence of serious prejudice to the opposing party.
    4. No benefit taken from the judgment under appeal.
    5. The appeal is reasonably arguable.

• Analysis:

  • Intent & Delay Explanation: Questor had no initial intent to appeal but reasonably changed its position following the clarification, filing a notice of appeal in September 2024.
  • Arguable Merit: The omission of findings on Emission RX in the Contempt Decision constituted a valid basis for appeal, meeting the low threshold of arguable merit.
  • Prejudice: No significant prejudice to the respondents was identified, especially since their appeal of the same decision remains pending.

• Decision: The court granted Questor’s application to extend the time to appeal and recommended that both appeals be heard together. No mention of damages, costs, or monetary awards