Procedure - When considering whether to grant Leave to Appeal or not, the Court considers the following Rules of Court:

When considering whether to grant Leave to Appeal or not, the Court considers the following Rules of Court:

62.03 Leave to Appeal
(1) Where a party seeks to appeal from
(a) an interlocutory order or decision,
(b) an order or decision as to costs only, or
(c) an order made with the consent of the parties,

(4) In considering whether or not to grant leave to appeal,
the judge hearing the motion may consider the following:
(a) whether there is a conflicting decision by another
judge or court upon a question involved in the proposed
appeal;
(b) whether he or she doubts the correctness of the order
or decision in question; or
(c) whether he or she considers that the proposed appeal
involves matters of sufficient importance.

In Lang v. Tran, 2006 CanLII 32627 (ON SC), Justice CAVARZAN J., addressed the following regarding "importance of the issues" at paragraph 11 as:

[11] With respect to the factor involving the importance of the issues, I note that the rule does not refer to the importance of the issues "to the parties". No doubt, when matters require resolution by proceeding to trial the issues are important to the parties. In my view, however, "importance of the issues" comprehends matters of general importance affecting the rights of society at large, analogous to the interpretation placed by the courts on the expression "matters of such importance" in rule 62.02(40(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Davidson Tisdale Ltd. v. Pendrick (1997), 18 C.P.C. (4th) 131, 106 O.A.C. 241 (Gen. Div.).


"procedure is not the master but rather the servant of justice"

The Grounds

Pursuant to Rule 1.03, 2.01, 2.02, 2.04 and 3.02 of the Rules of Court, the Court, may, extend time required for filing and service of the INTENDED APPELLANT's NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL;

The Court may at any time dispense with compliance with any rule, unless the rule expressly or impliedly provides otherwise, procedure is not the master but rather the servant of justice and should be applied accordingly, to see that justice is done.

A procedural error, including failure to comply with these rules or with the procedure prescribed by an Act for the conduct of a proceeding, shall be treated as an irregularity and shall not render the proceeding a nullity, and all necessary amendments shall be permitted or other relief granted at any stage in the proceeding, upon proper terms, to secure the just determination of the matters in dispute between the parties.

Canadian Judicial Council Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons:

B. PROMOTING EQUAL JUSTICE
STATEMENT:
Judges, the courts and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote access to the justice system for all persons on an equal basis, regardless of representation.

PRINCIPLES:
1. Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.

2. Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.

3. Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.

As stated in the above Canadian Judicial Council Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons, Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case, further INTENDED APPELLANT respectfully asserts, that that the balance of convenience favors the granting of the relief therefore sought.