Docket: CACV2343 David Koback Prospective Appellant (Respondent) - v. -, 2012 SKCA 112

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKCA 112 Date: 2012-11-28 Between: Docket: CACV2343 David Koback Prospective Appellant (Respondent) - and - Lori Koback Prospective Respondent (Petitioner) Before: Cameron J.A. Counsel: Rani L. Grewall for the prospective appellant Roger J.F. Lepage for the prospective respondent Application:

From: 2012 SKQB 365 Heard: November 28, 2012 Disposition: Allowed Written Reasons: November 28, 2012 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Cameron Cameron J.A. [1] This is an application under Rule 71 of The Court of Appeal Rules to extend the time for serving a notice of appeal. Thecircumstances are rather peculiar. The impugned decision (regarding child support for children attending university), is dated September7, 2012 and was apparently filed with the Registrar on September 10. The father was dissatisfied with the decision but decided not toappeal.

Then about a month later, on October 9, the judge issued further reasons for judgment purporting to correct an error he had madein rendering his decision. The correction served to add to the financial obligation of the father and, with that, he decided to appeal. But bythen the time for appeal from the decision had expired, so he brought this application to extend the time. [2] In the circumstances, and having regard for the underlay of principle at work here as set forth in Bank of Nova Scotia v.Saskatoon Salvage Company

(1954) Limited (1983), (SK CA), 29 Sask. R. 285 (Sask. C.A.), I have no hesitation ingranting the sought-after extension.

There is no accompanying prejudice to the other side; the father has an arguable case, particularly inrelation to the addition to the decision; and he has satisfactorily explained the delay associated with the exercise of his right of appeal.True, he had no intention of appealing until the addition was made, meaning he had no intention to appeal while the time for appeal wasrunning, but in the peculiar circumstances that prevail here I am not prepared to hold that against him. [3] There will be an order accordingly, with the costs of the application to be costs in the cause.

Lest it be thought otherwise, theorder will have the effect of extending the time to appeal in relation to the decision as a whole.