Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellant Nahla Mohamad Jawad sought an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of a Federal Court order that had dismissed her motion for an extension of time to serve and file her applicant's record in a judicial review proceeding.

• Dispute centered on whether the September 2024 Order was received on the date it was issued or, as the appellant claimed, on October 28, 2024, when she was handed a copy in person at the Registry counter.

• The four-part Hennelly test for granting an extension of time — continuing intention, merit, no prejudice, and reasonable explanation for delay — was not satisfied according to both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.

• Standard of review applied was palpable and overriding error, affording considerable deference to the Federal Court's discretionary decision.

• Appellant, self-represented, failed to identify any matter overlooked or omitted in the underlying September 2024 Order to establish the merit of her reconsideration motion.

• Appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded despite the respondent's request for costs.

Background and facts of the case

Nahla Mohamad Jawad, a self-represented litigant, was involved in judicial review proceedings against the Attorney General of Canada under Federal Court dockets T-2339-23 and T-2341-23. The case gave rise to a series of procedural motions and orders that ultimately culminated in an appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal (2026 FCA 52). The case turned not on the substantive merits of the judicial review itself, but on whether the appellant should be granted additional time to pursue procedural remedies she had missed.

The September 2024 Order and the question of receipt

On September 24, 2024, the Federal Court issued an order dismissing the appellant's motion for an extension of time to serve and file the applicant's record in a judicial review proceeding and permission to file additional affidavit evidence. According to the court file, the Federal Court Registry sent the order to the appellant's email address on September 24, 2024. However, the appellant claimed that she did not receive the order until she was handed a copy in person at the Registry counter on October 28, 2024. This factual dispute over the date of receipt became central to the procedural timeline that followed.

The late reconsideration motion and the Hennelly criteria

Under Rule 397(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106, a motion to reconsider an order must be filed within 10 days after the making of an order, or within such other time as the Court may allow. The appellant filed the motion for reconsideration on November 12, 2024, after the deadline. She therefore required an extension of time. To obtain such an extension, she was required to satisfy the four-part test from Canada (Attorney General) v. Hennelly, 1999 CanLII 8190: demonstrating (1) a continuing intention to pursue the matter; (2) that the matter has merit; (3) that no prejudice arises from the delay; and (4) a reasonable explanation for the delay. On January 14, 2025, the Federal Court judge dismissed the extension request, finding that the appellant had not demonstrated that she had failed to receive the September 2024 Order on September 24, 2024. The Federal Court judge also concluded that the appellant had not established any of the Hennelly criteria.

Parallel efforts to appeal the September 2024 Order

Separately, on May 28, 2025, the appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal the September 2024 Order to the Federal Court of Appeal. That motion was dismissed by order dated June 24, 2025, and a motion for reconsideration of that order was dismissed on September 2, 2025. In her motion for an extension of time to appeal, the appellant submitted that the Hennelly criteria were satisfied, maintaining that she intended to pursue the appeal but did not receive the September 2024 Order until October 28, 2024, and that the Registry in Montréal was closed when she attempted to file the motion materials on November 7, 2024. Applying the Hennelly criteria, the Court held that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time to appeal the September 2024 Order.

The appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal

The present appeal (2026 FCA 52) challenged the January 2025 Order denying the extension of time for reconsideration. On this appeal, the appellant made the same arguments on her intention to pursue the motion for reconsideration as she made at the Federal Court and to the Federal Court of Appeal on her motion for an extension of time to appeal the September 2024 Order. The appellant also submitted, as she did before the Federal Court, that the reconsideration motion had merit and that there was no prejudice to the respondent. The Federal Court had considered these arguments and rejected them in the January 2025 Order. The Federal Court of Appeal, composed of Justices Webb, Biringer, and Walker, heard the appeal in Montréal, Quebec, on March 9, 2026, and delivered judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 13, 2026.

Standard of review and the Court's analysis

The Court emphasized that granting an extension of time is a discretionary decision, subject to considerable deference on appeal. The Court stated that it is not permitted to redo the motion that was decided by the Federal Court judge. Unless an extricable question of law can be identified — which is reviewed on a standard of correctness — the Federal Court's order is reviewed on a standard of palpable and overriding error. The Court clarified that to identify a palpable and overriding error, it is not enough to disagree with the Federal Court's interpretation of the evidence. To be palpable, an error must be truly obvious; to be overriding, an error must affect the core of the outcome of the case. Applying this standard of review, the Court found that the appellant had not demonstrated an error in the January 2025 Order justifying intervention. The appellant had not shown that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error in concluding that the September 2024 Order was received the day it was issued, nor had she shown that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error in concluding that she had not sufficiently justified the elements necessary for an extension of time. The appellant also did not establish that the proposed motion for reconsideration had merit — a prerequisite to granting an extension of time under Hennelly. While not expressly addressed in the January 2025 Order, the appellant was given an opportunity to make submissions on this issue at the hearing, and was unable to identify any matter which had been overlooked or omitted by the motion judge in the September 2024 Order, as required under Rule 397(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Rules.

Ruling and outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, with Justice Biringer writing the reasons and Justices Webb and Walker concurring. Although the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, sought costs, the Court declined to award any. No specific monetary amount was at issue or ordered in favor of either party. The decision effectively brought to a close the appellant's repeated procedural efforts to challenge the September 2024 Order, as the Attorney General of Canada prevailed at every stage of the proceedings.