Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appeal was struck for failure to file the appellants' factum within the fast-track timeline under Rule 14.24(1)(a) of the Alberta Rules of Court

• Applicants sought restoration of the appeal under Rule 14.65, which requires consideration of five discretionary factors including arguable merit, explanation for delay, and prejudice

• Counsel's mistake in applying standard appeal deadlines instead of fast-track deadlines was offered as the explanation for the procedural deficiency

• Respondents opposed restoration solely on the basis that the appeal lacked arguable merit, though the Court found the "very low" threshold was met

• No prejudice to the respondents was established, as they had not been required to take additional steps during the delay

• The underlying dispute involves enforcement of a judgment against proceeds from U.S. real property allegedly used to purchase an Edmonton condominium registered in a spouse's name

Background and the parties involved

Cubbon Building Centre Ltd. and Miramar Holdings Ltd. (the applicants) had previously obtained a judgment against Darren Vrbanek, also known as Drago Vrbanek, who carried on business as Darren's Homes. The applicants sought to enforce that judgment against proceeds from the sale of real property located in the United States, which was registered in the names of Mr. Vrbanek and his wife. The applicants alleged that those proceeds were used to purchase a condominium in Edmonton, registered solely in the name of Mr. Vrbanek's wife, in which both spouses reside.

The procedural defect and the striking of the appeal

On February 12, 2026, the applicants' counsel received notice that the appeal had been struck because of a failure to file the appellants' factum within the timeline for fast-track appeals as required by Rule 14.24(1)(a) of the Alberta Rules of Court. The applicants explained that counsel had mistakenly believed the standard appeal deadlines applied. Despite this error, the applicants had filed and served both their Notice of Appeal and the Appeal Record within the required timelines. They also moved promptly to restore the appeal following it being struck and had a completed Factum and Extracts of Key Evidence ready for filing.

The legal framework for restoring an appeal

The Court of Appeal of Alberta exercises discretion on applications to restore appeals under Rule 14.65. Justice Jane Fagnan outlined the five relevant factors drawn from established jurisprudence: arguable merit to the appeal; explanation for the defect or delay which caused the appeal to be taken off the list; reasonable promptness in moving to cure the defect and have the appeal restored to the list; intention in time to proceed with the appeal; and lack of prejudice to the respondents, including length of delay. The Court emphasized that no single factor is determinative and the overarching question is whether, overall, it is in the interests of justice to permit the appeal to proceed. A restoration order may not be in the interests of justice even if all five factors are met.

The respondents' position and the arguable merit threshold

The respondents opposed the restoration application on the basis that the appeal had no arguable merit. However, the Court noted that "arguable merit" in this context has been described as a "very low" threshold, meaning that an appeal is not "hopeless or almost hopeless." The applicants alleged errors of law, mixed fact and law, and fact in the court below. Justice Fagnan stated she was satisfied, based on the parties' submissions, that the appeal meets the very low threshold applicable on this application to restore the appeal.

Prejudice and prior enforcement steps

The respondents took no position regarding prejudice. They had not been required to take additional steps. Further, the applicants' writ of enforcement and certificates of lis pendens were discharged from title to the Edmonton condominium pursuant to an order in November 2024.

The ruling and outcome

Justice Fagnan granted the application to restore the appeal. The Court directed that the proposed Factum and Extracts of Key Evidence are to be filed within two days of the decision. Deadlines for all other steps in the appeal will be determined by the Rules and any directions from the Case Management Officer. The application was heard on March 26, 2026, and reasons were filed at Edmonton, Alberta on March 30, 2026. No specific monetary amount was at issue in this procedural decision, as it dealt solely with the restoration of the appeal rather than the merits of the underlying judgment enforcement claim. The substantive appeal by Cubbon Building Centre Ltd. and Miramar Holdings Ltd. will now proceed.