I shall address each of these criteria in turn.
 Are there apparent grounds for relief?
 A consideration of the provisions of s. 5 and s. 6 of the
FLA in the context of the SLRA suggests a few straightforward
 First, the two acts are intended to be read and considered
together as part of a comprehensive scheme. This is so not only in
terms of division of property of spouses upon the death of one of
them but also in terms of dependent support obligations.
 Second, the spouse is intended to have a period of time to
consider his or her election. This is required not only because of
the period of grief that naturally follows as traumatic an event as
the death of a spouse but also because it takes time to gather
information and be in a position to make an informed election
in his or her best interest.
 Third, the requirement that the election be made within
six months recognizes that a balancing of interests is required as
between the imperative of ensuring that the surviving spouse is
able to make the choice that is in his or her best interests on the
one hand and the imperative of allowing an estate to be properly
administered on the other. The spouse is an important stake-holder in the estate administration process, but not the only one.
 There are a number of formal and informal deadlines or
expectations applicable to executors and administrators that are
premised on the concept of the “executor’s year”. The fact that
the legislature fixed the deadline for making an election at
six months or halfway through the “executor’s year” says something about the type of balancing expected when an extension is
requested. In the normal course and in most cases, an extension
should not be required. This too is informative as to the manner
in which the legislature intends that the balancing of interests is
to be undertaken.
 Fourth, the fact that a balancing of interests must be
undertaken implies that neither is an absolute. The mere fact
that the person seeking the extension — the surviving spouse —
has not yet got full information is not dispositive of the matter.
There is a difference between having precise and accurate information and having sufficient information to make an informed
choice. Assessing whether the electing spouse has assembled perfect knowledge is not the standard to be applied in assessing
whether there are grounds for relief. There will always be some
piece of information missing that might better fill in the picture,
even in the average or run-of-the-mill case. Extensions are
intended to be the exception and not the rule.