Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appeal centered on whether Bright Days Premium Child Care Inc. could obtain an extension of time to file its Notice of Appeal after missing the deadline by six days.
   
• Justice Friesen applied the four-part test from Cairns v Cairns to determine whether the extension should be granted.
   
• Evidentiary questions arose over whether the disputed assets, childcare equipment such as blinds and cabinets, were unique enough to justify a preservation order.
   
• Deference to the chambers judge's discretionary findings played a central role in assessing the appeal's prospects of success.
   
• Ms. Waddell's standing to represent Bright Days without counsel also arose as a procedural issue during the hearing.
   
• Ultimately, the court found the proposed grounds of appeal lacked any reasonable prospect of success.
   

Facts of the case

Bright Days Premium Child Care Inc. applied to the Court of Appeal of Alberta for an extension of time to file its Notice of Appeal, which it had filed six days late, and for a stay of the underlying chambers decision. The dispute arose from an agreement under which Spring Creek Mountain Village Inc. was to provide space for Bright Days to open a daycare. The arrangement broke down, and in November 2025 Bright Days' lease was terminated. On April 16, 2026, a chambers judge heard Bright Days' application for a preservation order over specific assets located at Spring Creek's property, the former site of the daycare. The chambers judge permitted Bright Days to retrieve certain items but refused to preserve others, referred to as the "disputed assets," which included items such as blinds and cabinets. The April 16 order also allowed the director of Bright Days to inspect the premises on April 22, and Spring Creek served the order on April 21. Bright Days attended the premises on April 26 as required, then unsuccessfully tried to vary the April 16 order through a further chambers application on April 29. Its Notice of Appeal was not filed until May 22, 2026, six days past the deadline, making the extension of time a precondition to pursuing the appeal or seeking a stay.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The chambers judge had applied the test for injunctive relief set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), concluding that Bright Days had not shown it would suffer irreparable harm without a preservation order, since any loss from the disputed assets could be addressed through a future damages award if Bright Days succeeded in the underlying lawsuit. On appeal, Justice Friesen applied the test for extending time to file a Notice of Appeal, drawn from Cairns v Cairns, which asks whether the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal, has a reasonable explanation for the delay, would not cause serious prejudice to the respondent by the extension, has not benefited from the judgment, and whether the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success. The court also referenced PurpleRung Foundation v Peace River (Town of) Subdivision and Development Appeal Board in addressing whether Ms. Waddell, as a non-lawyer, could be granted a right of audience on behalf of Bright Days, and invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c), with modifications, for the preparation of the order following the hearing.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Friesen accepted that Bright Days, through Ms. Waddell, always intended to appeal, and accepted her evidence that she was confused about deadlines after the April 29 application. However, the court noted that self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural standards as counsel, and that misunderstanding the rules is generally not enough to justify an extension. The court also noted that Ms. Waddell was not entitled to file materials on behalf of Bright Days, though she was granted a limited right of audience for that hearing only. Spring Creek argued the appeal would cause it prejudice given a childcare shortage in Canmore and its progress developing or operating a daycare at the site. Justice Friesen found it unnecessary to resolve the delay and prejudice factors because the appeal failed on the final Cairns criterion: it had no reasonable prospect of success. The decision to refuse a preservation order was discretionary and owed a high level of deference, as were the chambers judge's underlying factual findings. Bright Days had not shown any palpable and overriding error or a reviewable error of law. Ms. Waddell's affidavit offered no evidence that the disputed assets were unique beyond being part of the childcare facility, and the court reiterated that irreparable harm turns on the nature of the harm, not its magnitude; if the assets were later found to belong to Bright Days and to have been wrongfully converted, Spring Creek could be ordered to pay damages, a remedy that also covered any impact on Bright Days' grant funding. A separate ground, that the chambers judge relied on an incorrect assumption about the daycare's operational status, was found immaterial, since the daycare needed to operate in Canmore regardless of the exact date it became operational, and the new daycare was in fact using the disputed assets.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal denied Bright Days' application to extend the time to file its Notice of Appeal, finding that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success despite the short delay in filing. As a result, the stay application was rendered moot and was not considered. Costs for the day's applications were to be assessed according to Column 3, but Justice Friesen modified this and ordered lump sum costs of $5,000.00, adjusted in light of the financial pressures Ms. Waddell described during the hearing. Spring Creek Mountain Village Inc. was the successful party on both applications before the court.