The Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan has denied an application from the family of Adam Herold due to it exceeding the standard limit of pages. According to a Sept. 8 decision, the family provided a factum of 64 pages, exceeding the standard limit of 40 pages. “It also includes six attachments not regularly included in a factum, increasing the overall length of the appellants’ arguments to approximately 160 pages,” the decision read. The court document said factum length should only be increased in “exceptional circumstances,” noting length should be “departed from cautiously.” The appeal court referenced two previous cases, one from 2006 and one from 2016, where both requests to expand page length were denied, reaching the same conclusion that exceeding factum length is a rare occurrence under exceptional circumstances. Herold was among 16 people who died in the Humboldt Broncos bus crash on April 6, 2018. The tragedy spawned a lengthy legal battle between the semi-truck driver, the trucking company, the bus manufacturer, Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure, and several players’ families, including Herold’s. In the recent application, Herold’s family (appellants) made several arguments in favour of the increased page length, including the involvement of complex facts and legal issues. The appellants also argued the Charter ground of appeal raises issues that have not previously been considered by the courts. They also argued a further reduction from the proposed length of pages would leave out essential aspects. “With all due respect to counsel, I am not persuaded by the arguments,” Justice Georgina Jackson wrote in the decision. “I have read the draft factum in its entirety. I understand fully its complexity.” However, taking into account several factors, the justice said the application should be dismissed. Firstly, Jackson said the introductory portion could be considerably shortened. Other issues include long block quotations which could better be summarized or put in point form. Jackson also referenced subheadings that restated materials that were already presented. “A concise presentation of the argument will serve the appellants best,” the justice concluded. As there were not costs asked for in the application, none were awarded.
