Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local S-955 v Lilydale Inc, 2013 SKCA 56 deals with motions to extend time:
 The framework of principle at play in applications of this nature is well known. While the judge’s discretion to grant an extension of time to appeal is considered unfettered, it has become customary to assess the merits of such an application having regard for such factors as: (i) whether a reasonable explanation for the delay exists; (ii) whether the appellant possessed a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limited for appeal; (iii) whether there is an arguable case to be made to a panel of the Court; and (iv) whether the respondent will suffer any serious or real prejudice, if leave is granted, beyond what would be incurred in the usual appeal process. In any given case, one or more factors may be more important than any other.
 These factors are considered as a matter of practice, but as this Court has made clear in such decisions as Royal Bank of Canada v. G.M. Homes Inc. et al. (1982), 25 Sask. R. 6 (C.A.) and Treeland Motor Inn Ltd. v. Western Assurance Co. et al.reflex, (1983), 4 D.L.R. (4th) 370 (Sask. C.A.), they are not fixed rules; the only constant rule is that the discretion to enlarge the time must be exercised judicially. Section 9(6) emphasizes that a court may grant an extension of time when it is “just and equitable to do so.”
 For a recent application of these principles see: Dutchuk v. Dutchuk, 2009 SKCA 89 (CanLII), 2009 SKCA 89, 337 Sask. R. 46; Raymond v. Raymond Estate, 2010 SKCA 86 (CanLII), 2010 SKCA 86, 359 Sask. R. 123; Sparvier v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SKCA 115 (CanLII), 2011 SKCA 115; Fuller Austin Insulation Inc. v. International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, Local 119, 2012 SKCA 25 (CanLII), 2012 SKCA 25, 385 Sask. R. 304; and Frey v. Bell Mobility Inc., 2013 SKCA 26 (CanLII), 2013 SKCA 26.