Background
Jaroslav Novak alleged that he was the victim of fraud involving an investment account and described an investment recommended by CIBC World Markets Inc. as a scam. He unsuccessfully pursued an arbitral award in 2019, and the Divisional Court later dismissed his appeal from that award.
In September 2025, Sossin J.A. refused to extend the time for Novak to appeal the Divisional Court’s order, citing excessive and unexplained delay and insufficient merit. Novak then waited nearly ten months before seeking panel review of that refusal. Madsen J.A. denied his request for an extension because he had not addressed the governing test. Novak subsequently filed his motion for panel review of Madsen J.A.’s July 23, 2026 order one day after the applicable four-day deadline and therefore required another extension.
The Court’s Holding
Lauwers J.A., sitting as a motion judge, granted Novak an extension of time to seek panel review of Madsen J.A.’s order. The governing question was whether the justice of the case required an extension, considering Novak’s intention to seek review, the length and explanation for the delay, prejudice, and the merits. The court emphasized that merit is the most important factor and may alone justify refusing an extension.
Although Novak had consistently intended to challenge decisions adverse to him and the immediate delay was only one day, Lauwers J.A. found that the proposed review appeared meritless and potentially abusive. The extension was nevertheless granted as a matter of judicial prudence—not because Madsen J.A.’s decision appeared erroneous, but because allowing a panel to address the matter was considered the best way to avoid consuming further judicial resources through repeated procedural motions.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking panel review of a single Court of Appeal judge’s order must comply with the filing deadline applicable when the review is sought; Novak was subject to the former four-day period and filed one day late.
- The justice-of-the-case test governs extensions of time, with the merits of the proposed proceeding carrying particular and potentially decisive weight.
- A court may grant an extension despite an apparently meritless or potentially abusive proposed review when doing so is the most prudent way to conserve judicial resources and bring repetitive proceedings before a panel.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the flexibility of the justice-of-the-case analysis. Even where the merits weigh strongly against an extension, case-management concerns and the efficient use of judicial resources can affect how the court exercises its discretion.
The ruling did not decide the panel review itself or cast doubt on Madsen J.A.’s order. It only permitted Novak to bring that review before a panel, which could then address the matter directly.