ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES v WANG, 2018 ABCA 60
1.1: What these rules do
9.2: Preparation of judgments and orders
9.5: Entry of judgments and orders
13.5: Variation of time periods
14.36: Case management officers
14.39: Case management officers
14.77: Preparation and signature of judgments and orders
The Applicants, Ms. Xiaoli Wang and Mr. Daiming Li applied for a review of the Court of Appeal’s Case Management Officer’s Decision which allowed the filing of two Orders without the Applicants’ approval of the form of the Orders. The first Order granted the Applicants an extension of time to appeal Decisions from the Court of Queen’s Bench (the “First Order”). The second Order concerned an Appeal by the Applicants of the First Order where they sought to widen the scope of the allowed Appeal (the “Second Order”). While the Applicants were the successful parties in respect of the First Order, the Respondent was the successful party in respect of the Second Order.
Slatter J.A. noted that pursuant to Rule 14.36(3), a single Judge of the Court of Appeal may review a Case Management Officer’s Decision. His Lordship noted that, although the Applicants were the successful parties in respect of the First Order, they failed to draft the Order within 10 days, pursuant to Rule 9.2(1). Accordingly, the Respondent drafted the First Order pursuant to Rule 9.2(2)(a), and submitted it to the Applicants for review. The Applicants did not respond within the ten days prescribed by the Rules, so under Rule 9.2(2)(c), the Respondent was entitled to enter the First Order without further notice to the Applicants. Consequently, Slatter J.A. found that the Case Management Officer did not err in filing the First Order.
As the successful party in respect of the Second Order, the Respondent prepared a draft Second Order and sent it to the Applicants within the 10 day period prescribed by Rule 9.2(1). However, the Applicants failed to respond, so again the Respondent was entitled to file the Second Order pursuant to Rule 9.2(2)(c). Contrary to Rules 9.5(2) and 14.77, both Orders at issue were not entered within the three month time limit. Slatter J.A. found that the Applicants were at least partly responsible for the delay in finalizing the Orders. Given that the Case Management Officer could extend time limits set out in the Rules pursuant to Rule 13.5, Slatter J.A. held that the Case Management Officer did not err in extending the filing time.
Slatter J.A. noted that the late entry of the Orders did not comply with the additional requirement set out in Rule 9.5(2), whereby the Respondent should have provided notice of the late entry to the Applicants. The non-compliance was due to an administrative error: the Applicants were not copied on the Respondent’s correspondence to the Court to file the Orders. Slatter J.A. noted that in accordance with Rule 14.39, Applications to Case Management Officers are supposed to be informal. Accordingly, if the administrative error had not been made, there would have been sufficient notice to the Applicants. In addition, both Orders formed the basis of the ultimate Appeal at issue, so it was necessary for them to be entered. Slatter J.A. also found that there was no resulting prejudice to the Applicants. Finally, although the Applicants were self-represented, Slatter J.A. held that further to Rule 1.1(2), all litigants must familiarize themselves with the Rules and comply with them.
The Application was dismissed.View CanLII Details