Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Application to appeal denial of time extension required permission from the same appellate justice under Alberta Rules of Court.

• No new evidence was provided to support alleged factual errors in the lower court’s decision.

• Claims about institutional accountability were irrelevant to the decision under review.

• Argument regarding late service of materials failed to demonstrate any actual impact on submissions.

• Applicants did not explain the full duration of their delay in filing a notice of appeal.

• No issue of general importance or precedential value was identified to justify panel review.

Background facts

Hardik Patel (also known as Hardik Ashwinbh Patel) and Sonika Patel applied for permission to appeal a decision by the Honourable Justice Jolaine Antonio of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The earlier decision, issued in March 2025, denied the applicants’ request for an extension of time to appeal an order pronounced on September 1, 2023.

The respondents in the case are ATB Financial. Several other entities and individuals—Real Industries 333 Corp, Real Enterprises 333 Corp, SGVP Gurukul Canada, Spot Ads Inc, John Doe, Mary Doe, ABC Corporation, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, and the Royal Bank of Canada—were listed as not parties to the application.

Procedural history and decision under review

Justice Antonio’s earlier decision refusing the extension of time was made under the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, specifically Rules 14.5(1)(a) and 14.5(2), which require that permission to appeal a decision of a single appellate justice must be obtained from that justice.

Arguments raised in the application

In their current application, the applicants sought permission to appeal the refusal of the extension to a panel of the Court. They also sought other procedural reliefs, which were not considered as they were outside the justice’s jurisdiction.

The applicants:

• Repeated and expanded on allegations of factual error made in the earlier proceedings but did not point to supporting evidence.

• Raised arguments related to a “broad issue of institutional accountability,” though not tied to the decision denying the extension of time.

• Alleged they received the respondent’s submissions only two days before the hearing instead of the required five days, without specifying how this affected their oral submissions.

• Explained their delay by citing misinterpretation of communications from the Court, attempts to retain counsel, and lack of a strict deadline. However, they provided no explanation for the initial months of delay.

Decision and outcome

Justice Antonio concluded that the applicants’ new submissions were not persuasive and did not demonstrate any of the errors that would justify panel review. Specifically:

• The application did not raise a question of general importance, legal principle, or policy that could have precedential value.

• There was no showing of a reviewable or material issue of law, unreasonable exercise of discretion, or palpable and overriding factual error affecting the outcome.

• The applicants’ arguments were primarily a re-interpretation of the record and did not meet the standards for granting permission to appeal.

Accordingly, the application was denied. Costs were awarded against the applicants on Column 5, payable forthwith. The Court also invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c), allowing the Court to prepare the resulting order.

Written submissions were filed on April 4, April 16, and May 14, 2025. The decision was filed at Calgary, Alberta, on June 20, 2025, by Justice Antonio.

No damages or other monetary awards were granted, as this was a procedural ruling related to appeal permission—not a merits-based decision involving financial liability.