MB6-02927

MB6-02927

The RAD granted the extension because the appellants provided a reasonable explanation for an 11‑day delay, demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue the appeal, there was no evidence of prejudice to the Minister, and the extension was limited to the number of days necessary; accordingly the file was perfected on August 5, 2016.

Citation
MB6-02927
Parties
Appellants / Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal — Application for Extension of Time to File or Perfect an Appeal / Application to Extend Time; File Perfected
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; file perfected as of August 5, 2016.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Appeal Perfection, Delay, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Extension of Time Procedural Fairness Appeal Perfection Delay Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellants / Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal — Application for Extension of Time to File or Perfect an Appeal / Application to Extend Time; File Perfected

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD should extend the time to file or perfect an appeal under s.159.91(2) IRPR
  2. 2 Whether the appellants demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the delay was reasonably explained and limited to the number of days necessary

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD granted the extension because the appellants provided a reasonable explanation for an 11‑day delay, demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue the appeal, there was no evidence of prejudice to the Minister, and the extension was limited to the number of days necessary; accordingly the file was perfected on August 5, 2016.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; file perfected as of August 5, 2016.

Orders

  • Application for an extension of time to file or perfect the appeal is granted.
  • The appeal file is perfected as of August 5, 2016.