Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Extension of time to seek leave to appeal was denied due to absence of a question of law or jurisdiction.

• The applicant did not demonstrate continuous intent to appeal or provide a reasonable explanation for delay.

• The Board's decision granting benefits effective December 10, 2024, was treated as a factual determination.

• Section 23(1) of The Social Services Appeal Board Act permits appeal only on questions of law or jurisdiction with leave.

• The appropriate remedy regarding the benefit start date was a request for clarification under section 22(1) of the same Act.

• No prejudice to the Director was raised or considered material to the outcome.

Background and underlying dispute

David Alan Diaz-Fullerton applied for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal an order issued by the Social Services Appeal Board on December 10, 2024. The respondent in the case was the Director of Manitoba Supports. The Board had varied the Director’s original decision that denied benefits and directed the Department of Families, Employment and Income Assistance to provide benefits to the applicant under section 5(1)(a) of The Manitoba Assistance Act, CCSM c A150, for a period of twenty-four months effective December 10, 2024.

The applicant challenged this outcome, alleging that the department had failed to issue “retroactive pay to when [his] benefits were varied,” which he asserted was in September 2024.

Procedural motion and legal framework

The motion sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal under section 23(1) of The Social Services Appeal Board Act, CCSM c S167, which limits such appeals to questions involving the Board’s jurisdiction or points of law, and only with leave from a judge of the Court of Appeal.

The test for granting an extension of time includes five criteria as outlined in Bartel-Zobarich v Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals (MAHCP-Bargaining Unit), 2022 MBCA 64: (1) continuous intention to appeal, (2) reasonable explanation for the delay, (3) an arguable ground of appeal, (4) whether any prejudice to the other party can be addressed, and (5) whether it is right and just in the circumstances to grant the extension.

Decision and reasoning of the Court of Appeal

Justice Edmond reviewed the motion and dismissed it. The applicant did not file evidence addressing whether he had a continuous intention to appeal or a reasonable explanation for the delay. Although he explained during the hearing that he had been trying to resolve the issue with the department and the Board, this was not supported by evidence.

The Court concluded that the motion lacked arguable merit because the appeal did not raise a question of law or jurisdiction, but rather a factual issue—specifically, the effective date from which benefits were granted. Justice Edmond found that while the applicant believed benefits should have started earlier than December 10, 2024, the Board’s selection of that date did not raise a legal or jurisdictional question.

The Court emphasized that any issue with the benefit start date should have been addressed by a request for clarification to the Board under section 22(1) of The Social Services Appeal Board Act, which must be filed in writing within thirty days of the Board’s decision. Whether the Board would consider extending that deadline was left to its discretion.

Conclusion

The Manitoba Court of Appeal found that the applicant did not satisfy the requirement of presenting an arguable legal or jurisdictional issue necessary to justify an extension of time for leave to appeal. As a result, the motion was dismissed, and no order of costs was made.

There was no monetary award made by the Court of Appeal in this decision.