Combining these considerations, I conclude that there are
grounds for relief when the electing spouse has not been able to
assemble a reasonable knowledge base from which an informed
choice might fairly be expected to be made. By granting time to
make an election, the legislature intended that there be a fair
opportunity to ensure that the election is a reasonably informed
one. The concept of “reasonable” means that there are no absolutes — reasonable is measured having regard to the nature of
the information needed, its materiality to the choice to be made
and the interests of other stakeholders in the process.
 I therefore conclude that there are some grounds for relief
in the present circumstances. The complex and international
nature of the business interests of the deceased will take more
time to understand and evaluate. It would be irresponsible for
the applicant to make an election with the limited information
regarding value presently available.
 Has any delay been incurred in good faith?
 This criterion asks me to consider whether the electing
spouse, while perhaps lacking the information to make an
informed choice, has been acting in good faith in pursuing the
information necessary to make the election.
 This application was brought very close to the six-month
anniversary of the passing of Mr. Aquilina. That event was a relatively sudden, unexpected and shocking one. Apart from the time
necessary to grieve and process the loss of a long-time spouse,
time was also needed to look for a will and make inquiries of
Mr. Aquilina’s lawyer. The complexities associated with Mr. Aquilina having private corporate holdings in Malta, the process of
obtaining appraisals — all of this has been a lot to deal with. Mrs.
Aquilina has now retained counsel and is in the process of getting
matters in hand. I find that the delay, such as there has been, is
both explainable and was incurred in good faith.
 Will anyone be substantially prejudiced by the delay?
 If no extension were granted, the default answer under the
FLA is that the SLRA regime would govern. The only other known
beneficiaries of the estate are Mr. Aquilina’s three adult children.
They have confirmed that they do not oppose this motion. That
acquiescence, while not rising to the level of active consent, nevertheless argues against there being substantial prejudice.
 Superficially, it can be supposed than any extension of the
time to elect is prejudicial to the interests of other beneficiaries
since it can confidently be assumed that any election ultimately
made would be to accept the more favourable regime thereby
leaving less for the remaining beneficiaries. The prejudice s. 2(8)
of the FLA asks me to consider is not the prejudice of losing the