Generally speaking, when the reasons for the appeal not proceeding in a timely manner can be reasonably said to lie at the foot of appellant’s counsel, it is unusual to refuse reinstatement. Mr. Justice Esson stated in Phillips v. Phillips (1998), 131 B.C.A.C. 204, 1999 BCCA 693 at para. 9: It is rare for an application to reinstate to be refused where the matter has been prosecuted to the point where the appeal is ready to be set for hearing. It is also unusual to refuse reinstatement where the default is that of the lawyer rather than the appellant and this appears to be such a case. On the other hand, it is sometimes justifiable to visit the fault of the lawyer on the client and leave the latter to her remedy against the lawyer…
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.