Lughas v. Manitoba Date:, 2014 MBCA 63

Citation: Lughas v. Manitoba Date: 20140616 Public Insurance Corp., 2014 MBCA 63 Docket: AI 14-30-08130 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: LAMBERT LUGHAS ) L. Lughas ) on his own behalf (Appellant) Applicant ) ) B. Harvey- and - ) for the Respondent ) Manitoba PublicMANITOBA PUBLIC INSURANCE ) Insurance CorporationCORPORATION ) ) D. G.

Guénette (Respondent) Respondent ) for the Respondent ) Automobile Injury- and - ) Compensation Appeal ) CommissionTHE AUTOMOBILE INJURY ) COMPENSATION APPEAL ) Chambers motion heard andCOMMISSION ) Decision pronounced: ) May 29, 2014 Respondent ) ) Written reasons: ) June 16, 2014 MICHEL A. MONNIN J.A. [1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of the respondent, the Automobile Injury Compensation AppealCommission (AICAC), made on June 29, 2011.

The matters dealt with by the AICAC are as a result of motor vehicle accidents thatoccurred between 1996 and 2006. [2] Because the applicant did not initiate appeal proceedings within the 30-day period provided by law, he must firstobtain an order extending time to file such an appeal. That motion, which is before me now, was only filed on March 10, 2014. [3] The test to be met by an applicant seeking an extension of time in which to appeal is set out in Kildonan Ventures Ltd.v.

MacKenzie, 2006 MBCA 52, 205 Man.R. (2d) 114, as follows (at paras. 14-15): Three criteria must normally be satisfied before an extension of time for the filing of a notice of appeal, or, as in this case, a notice ofmotion seeking leave to appeal, will be granted: 1. the applicant must demonstrate it had a continuous intention to seek leave to appeal from a time within the period when the leavemotion should have been filed; i.e., within 30 days of the Board’s orders; 2. the applicant must offer a reasonable explanation for the delay; and 3. the applicant must establish that it has an arguable ground of appeal.

See, e.g. Elias v. Wolf (2004), 2004 MBCA 99 , 190 Man.R. (2d) 40; 335 W.A.C. 40; 2004 MBCA 99, Pelisek v. Pelisek(2003), 2003 MBCA 55 , 173 Man.R. (2d) 192; 293 W.A.C. 192; 2003 MBCA 55, Bohemier et al. v. CIBC Mortgages Inc.

(2001), 2001 MBCA 161 , 160 Man.R. (2d) 39; 262 W.A.C. 39; 2001 MBCA 161. See also Hunter v.

Hunter (2000), 2000MBCA 134 , 150 Man.R. (2d) 291; 230 W.A.C. 291; 2000 MBCA 134, where Scott, C.J.M., said, inter alia, that the applicantfor an extension of time must also establish “that it is right and just in all of the circumstances that time ... be extended” (at para. 6). [4] In the present case, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that he had a continuous intention to appeal. [5] As to the second requirement; namely, the reason for the delay in seeking an extension of time, the applicant allegesthat several health issues have prevented him from bringing his application before this time.

However, save for this assertion, theapplicant provided not a scintilla of evidence with respect to that claim or that the health issues he alleges were of such an extent that hewas effectively unable to bring the application that he finally brought after two and one-half years. [6] As to the third criterion, the applicant has failed to convince me that he has an arguable ground of appeal on aquestion of law or jurisdiction, which is one of the requirements needed in order to be granted leave to appeal.

At best, his proposedappeal is one based either on factual issues or issues of mixed fact and law, which fail to meet the requirement to be granted leave toappeal. [7] Accordingly, I would deny the application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal. J.A.