Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Milton Ross Kiehlbauch sought an extension of time to appeal an April 29, 2026 chambers order that refused to set aside a 2019 default judgment and found him in contempt of court.
   
• His appeal was due May 29, 2026, but was not filed until June 8, 2026, after a missing filing fee, an incomplete fee waiver application and repeated rejected filings.
   
• Court records showed a different sequence of events from his claim that the online filing portal misregistered his payment and discarded his earlier submissions.
   
• Although his efforts to file before the deadline showed a bona fide intention to appeal, his explanation did not excuse or justify the lateness.
   
• An earlier December 2024 refusal to set aside the same default judgment was never appealed, and he identified no legal error in the second dismissal.
   
• Complaints about a two-minute limit to wrap up oral submissions and one day's notice of the contempt application had no chance of success.
   

Facts of the case

Stuart Financial Corporation, acting on behalf of itself and all other members of a class having claim, obtained a default judgment against Milton Ross Kiehlbauch in November 2019. Kiehlbauch had legal representation when he applied to set it aside, and that application was heard in special chambers in December 2024 with both counsel filing detailed written submissions. It was dismissed, and the order, signed by both counsel, was filed in February 2025.

A second application to set aside the default judgment followed. On April 29, 2026, a chambers justice dismissed it, prohibited Kiehlbauch from filing further pleadings relating to the same facts without the court's permission, and found him in contempt for failing to provide a completed Form 13 and failing to attend questioning as ordered. The order also directed him to complete the Form 13 and attend questioning, and gave further directions regarding money paid into court. The respondent on that application had argued the matter was res judicata.

Kiehlbauch's appeal was due by May 29, 2026. He submitted an appeal package on May 26 without the required filing fee, and after the Registry contacted him and no payment was received, the appeal was rejected the following day. His later attempt to obtain a fee waiver failed because the application was not properly commissioned, lacked the required supporting documentation and was never completed in full. After he advised the registry of difficulties with the online payment portal, he was told payment could be made directly at the Court counter, which he did on June 3, 2026. His subsequent electronic submissions were still made incorrectly and rejected, and the appeal was not filed until June 8, 2026.

The Case Management Officer then directed that an application to extend time had to be made before the appeal could proceed. No application was filed, but Kiehlbauch scheduled a hearing date of July 30, 2026, which was taken off the list when he failed to file the required materials. On July 21, 2026, the Case Management Officer emailed him to confirm the removal, explain the necessary steps and attempt to address his confusion on several other issues. He filed his application materials in relatively acceptable form on August 5, 2026, and the application was heard on September 23, 2026.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

No insurance policy or contractual terms were at issue. The application referenced Rule 14.8 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010. Under the test drawn from Cairns v Cairns, [1931] 4 DLR 819, and Sohal v Brar, 1998 ABCA 375, Kiehlbauch had to establish five things: a bona fide intention to appeal while the right to appeal existed, an explanation that excuses or justifies the lateness, an absence of serious prejudice to the respondent such that disturbing the judgment would not be unjust, that he had not taken the benefits of the judgment, and a reasonable chance of success on appeal.

Reasoning and analysis

The court accepted that Kiehlbauch's efforts to file before the deadline reflected a bona fide intention to appeal. His explanation for the delay fared worse. He said the Court's filing portal registered a June 1, 2026 payment under the wrong file number, deleted or discarded his earlier submissions and cancelled the initial hearing date, but the Court's record instead showed the unpaid fee, the incomplete fee waiver application and the rejected filings. Relying on Kuzik v Hagel, 2021 ABCA 241, the court noted that self-represented litigants are required to know the rules under which litigation is conducted. It appeared that Kiehlbauch was not only confused about the rules but also had difficulty following the Case Management Officer's clear directions, so he had not established an excuse that justified the lateness.

Even assuming a reasonable excuse existed, the application failed for lack of any reasonable chance of success. An appeal must be prima facie meritorious, or not frivolous (Alberta Treasury Branches v Conserve Oil 1st Corporation, 2016 ABCA 87), and extending time for an appeal with no chance of success would be inappropriate (RD v LT, 2020 ABCA 179). Kiehlbauch argued that the justice who heard the December 2024 application made statements during that hearing suggesting the case should be fully adjudicated, yet he never appealed her refusal to set aside the default judgment. Nor did he raise any legal error in the April 2026 dismissal, specifically regarding the chambers justice's jurisdiction to grant relief already sought and denied in December 2024.

On the contempt finding, Kiehlbauch argued that he was restricted to two minutes of oral submissions and that the application was served only one day before the hearing. The court noted that, at a certain point during oral argument, the chambers justice told him he would have two minutes to wrap up his submissions. As for the short notice, he had not asserted or explained how he may have been prejudiced. Neither argument had any chance of success, and based on the materials filed, no other terms of the April 2026 order appeared to be in issue. The reasons do not address whether the respondent would suffer serious prejudice or whether Kiehlbauch had taken the benefits of the judgment.

Ruling and overall outcome

With no chance of success on appeal, the Court of Appeal of Alberta denied Kiehlbauch's application to extend time to appeal, a result in favour of Stuart Financial Corporation. No monetary amount was ordered, granted or awarded in the decision, and the reasons do not address costs. The court invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c) and stated that it would prepare the resulting order.