A.A. v. Human Rights Commission (N.B.), (2013) 414 N.B.R.(2d) 30 (CA)

• Judge: Bell, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: November 07, 2013
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2013), 414 N.B.R.(2d) 30 (CA)

A.A. v. HRC (2013), 414 N.B.R.(2d) 30 (CA);

    414 R.N.-B.(2e) 30; 1075 A.P.R. 30

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.007

Renvoi temp.: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.007

A.A. (intended appellant) v. The Province of New Brunswick and the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission (intended respondents)

(103-13-CA)

Indexed As: A.A. v. Human Rights Commission (N.B.)

Répertorié: A.A. v. Human Rights Commission (N.B.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Bell, J.A.

November 27, 2013.

Summary:

Résumé:

An intended appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a decision of a Queen's Bench judge.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, per Bell, J.A., dismissed the motion.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Practice - Topic 9002

Appeals - Notice of appeal - Extension of time for filing and serving notice of appeal - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal enumerated a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether the court ought to exercise its discretion to extend the time for filing and serving a notice of appeal - See paragraph 2.

Practice - Topic 9002

Appeals - Notice of appeal - Extension of time for filing and serving notice of appeal - An intended appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a decision of a Queen's Bench judge in a human rights matter - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, per Bell, J.A., dismissed the motion - The intended appellant showed no intention to appeal and did not communicate any intention to appeal to the opposite parties - Other than discouragement and an unwillingness to pay a large retainer, the intended appellant offered no further explanation for her failure to respect the time limits - She did not claim to have been unaware of those limits - The four month delay was excessive - The appeal lacked merit - See paragraphs 4 to 9.

Procédure - Cote 9002

Appels - Avis d'appel - Prolongation du délai de dépôt ou de signification d'un avis d'appel - [Voir Practice - Topic 9002 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick v. Human Rights Commission (N.B.) (2010), 360 N.B.R.(2d) 283; 930 A.P.R. 283; 2010 NBCA 40, refd to. [para. 1].

Atlantic Pressure Treating Ltd. v. Bay Chaleur Construction (1981) Ltd. (1987), 81 N.B.R.(2d) 165; 205 A.P.R. 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Naderi v. Strong (2005), 280 N.B.R.(2d) 379; 734 A.P.R. 379; 2005 NBCA 10, refd to. [para. 16].

Gaudet v. Gaudet (2009), 350 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 903 A.P.R. 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Burgess v. McKinnon-Burgess (2011), 375 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 969 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Murray v. Rodgers, [2012] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Roberge (R.J.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 469; 337 N.R. 389; 269 Sask.R. 37; 357 W.A.C. 37; 2005 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 2].

New Brunswick et al. v. LeBlanc et al. (2012), 398 N.B.R.(2d) 83; 1032 A.P.R. 83; 2013 NBCA 9, refd to. [para. 7].

Caissie v. Gallant (2013), 408 N.B.R.(2d) 308; 1058 A.P.R. 308 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Dobson (H.R.) (1999), 223 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 572 A.P.R. 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Steven D. Foulds, for the intended appellant;

Krista L. Colford, for the intended respondent, the Province of New Brunswick;

Sarina J.E. McKinnon, for the intended respondent, the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission.

This application was heard on November 7, 2013, before Bell, J.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision in both official languages on November 27, 2013.