The respondent opposes the extension for two principal reasons. First, she says that the appellant did not act diligently to obtain the reasons and order the transcripts. The appellant relies on Gill v. Highland Pacific Mortgage Corporation, 2005 BCCA 513, review dismissed 2006 BCCA 15, but that was a case in which no steps had been taken within the 60 day period to evince an intention to proceed with the appeal, and no explanation given. I would not give effect to this submission. I am satisfied that the appellant attempted to order the materials she thought she had to file in a timely way. I would not deny the application to extend time on this ground.
"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.