Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellants filed their motion for an extension of time 234 days after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal, a substantial delay requiring justification

• Application of the four-part Hennelly test — continuing intention, merit, prejudice, and reasonable explanation — governed the extension of time analysis

• The Associate Judge assumed the appeal had merit but still found the overall interests of justice weighed against granting the extension

• Federal Court found the appellants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, despite arguments citing case complexity and former counsel's conduct

• Appellants conceded at the hearing that no palpable and overriding error existed in the Federal Court's decisions, undermining their appeal

• Costs of $2,500 per respondent were ordered against the appellants on a joint and several basis

Background and the parties involved

This case involves a large group of individual appellants, led by Karine Solakian, who brought an action against Canada Post Corporation and His Majesty the King in Right of Canada. The matter originated in the Federal Court under docket T-1436-22 and made its way to the Federal Court of Appeal under citation 2026 FCA 75. The appeal was heard and decided from the bench in Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 16, 2026, by Justices Gleason, Locke, and Biringer, with Biringer J.A. delivering the reasons on behalf of the Court.

The original action and the striking of the statement of claim

The appellants had filed a statement of claim against the respondents in the Federal Court. In 2024, Associate Judge Coughlan struck the appellants' statement of claim without leave to amend, pursuant to the decision reported at 2024 FC 420. This meant the appellants' lawsuit was effectively terminated at the pleadings stage, and the appellants were not permitted to revise and refile their claim.

The late motion for an extension of time

Rather than filing a timely appeal of the order striking their claim, the appellants allowed the appeal deadline to lapse. Their notice of motion seeking an extension of time to appeal was filed 234 days after the deadline prescribed by Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules. Associate Judge Cotter dismissed the request for an extension, and Federal Court Justice Kane subsequently upheld that decision in 2025 FC 1623. It was this chain of rulings that the appellants sought to overturn before the Federal Court of Appeal.

The legal test for extensions of time

The well-established Hennelly test requires a court to consider four factors when deciding whether to grant an extension of time: whether the moving party demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue the appeal; whether the proposed appeal has some merit; whether the respondent would be prejudiced by the delay; and whether a reasonable explanation for the delay exists. The overarching consideration remains whether granting the extension serves the interests of justice. Importantly, no single factor is determinative, and the Hennelly factors do not constitute a closed list of all relevant considerations.

The lower courts' findings on the extension factors

The Associate Judge acknowledged that the appellants had shown a continuing intention to pursue the appeal. However, even assuming the appeal had some merit, the Associate Judge concluded that the interests of justice did not favour granting the extension. The length of the 234-day delay raised concerns about prejudice to the respondents, and the appellants had not put forward a reasonable explanation for that delay. Justice Kane of the Federal Court found no reviewable errors in the Associate Judge's reasoning and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants' arguments on appeal

Before the Federal Court of Appeal, the appellants advanced several arguments. They contended it was an error in principle for the Associate Judge to merely assume the appeal had merit rather than conducting a "summary assessment" of its merits. They challenged the finding that there was no reasonable explanation for the delay, pointing to the complexity of the case and the conduct of their former counsel. They also argued that the lower courts erred by inferring prejudice to the respondents from the delay alone. Finally, they submitted that it was not in the interests of justice to refuse an extension of time as they suffer prejudice by being unable to appeal the order striking their statement of claim.

The appellate court's analysis and reasoning

The Federal Court of Appeal rejected each of the appellants' arguments. On the question of merit, the Court found no error in the Associate Judge's approach of assuming the appeal had some merit — a stance that actually favoured the appellants — since the law does not require a full-scale evaluation of the merits in an extension of time context. With respect to the delay, the Court noted that the appellants were simply repeating arguments that had already been carefully considered and rejected twice by the Federal Court. The appellants bore the burden of providing a reasonable explanation and failed to do so. As for prejudice, the Court held that regardless of whether actual prejudice to the respondents was demonstrated, it was appropriate to weigh the significant length of the delay when assessing the interests of justice. The Court further confirmed that Koch v. Borgatti Estate did not alter the long-established test for granting extensions of time, as the appellants had suggested.

Ruling and outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The appellants conceded during the hearing that no palpable and overriding error existed in the Federal Court's decisions, which effectively removed their path to appellate relief. As agreed by the parties, the appellants were ordered, jointly and severally, to pay costs of $2,500, all-inclusive of taxes and disbursements, to each respondent — Canada Post Corporation and His Majesty the King in Right of Canada. The successful respondents thus preserved the finality of the order striking the appellants' statement of claim.