The applicants sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an order of the motion judge.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicants had a timely intention to appeal, their explanation for the delay was inadequate, there was continuing prejudice to the public interest due to delayed enforcement of an environmental order, and the proposed appeal lacked merit.
The court emphasized that lack of merit alone can be determinative in such motions.
