In the context of litigation over alleged water contamination, the Appellants appealed a portion of a Procedural Order directing how a contempt hearing should occur.

Amongst other things, the Appellants argued that the Respondent breached Rules 9.2 and 9.3, which govern the preparation of Judgments and Orders, and which allow for a party to Apply to the Court to resolve a dispute over the contents of a Judgment or Order. Specifically, the Appellants argued that the Respondent submitted an Order for filing without the Appellants’ approval and despite their objections to its contents.

The Court stated that the Order under Appeal specifically invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c), which, when invoked, dispenses with the need for consent from another party as to the contents of an Order. The Court stated that the Appellants were not, and could not be, prejudiced by the use of Rule 9.4(2)(c) because the content of an Order is not meant to debate the reasons for an Order in any case, as was the Appellants’ goal.

 The Court therefore dismissed the Appeal.