Applications to extend time for compliance with nuisance abatement orders must be assessed by weighing the quality of efforts to comply and the difficulties encountered against the interests of the person entitled to abatement. As time passes, the balance shifts in favour of the person resisting the extension, and reliance on adverse economic consequences becomes less cogent when attributable to the respondent's own delay. A judge's practice of asking questions of a self-represented litigant to bring issues into focus does not constitute bias or denial of natural justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.