Failure to meet a time period for submitting a written statement in ongoing proceedings is governed by R. 9.3(a) RoP, (R. 220.3 RoP). R. 320 RoP is relevant if a time limit is missed that relates either to completely new proceedings or to applications made after the conclusion of proceedings, such as the initiation of appeal proceedings, new proceedings on the merits, applications for the assessment of damages, challenges to decisions declaring appeals inadmissible or objections to default judgments. Even after a deadline has been missed, request for an extension of the timeline can be submitted and the time period can be extended retroactively (R. 9.3(a) RoP). The fact that the Local Division considered it sufficient that the submission of the incorrect reply was based on human error is not objectionable given the circumstances of the present case. This cannot be considered a manifest error.
