Justice Schutz considered whether the Applicants were required to obtain judicial permission to appeal as a prerequisite to proceed with an Appeal of an Order. The Applicants appealed the entirety of the Order in question and the Court of Appeal Case Management Officer advised that because the Order related to a preliminary matter, permission to appeal should be reviewed by a Justice of the Court of Appeal.

The Respondent submitted that Rule 14.5(1)(b) is a complete bar to the Applicants’ appeal of the Order due to the fact certain paragraphs of the Order related to pre-Trial procedural decisions and adjournments. Justice Schutz disagreed with the Respondent’s position and identified that Rule 14.5 stipulates exceptions to the general rule, enumerated at Rule 14.4(1), that an Appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a Decision of Court of Queen’s Bench Judge. As such, if parts of the Order do not fit in one of the exceptions listed in Rule 14.5, there is no bar to an Appeal with respect to those portions of the Order.

Justice Schutz further stated that, while Rule 14.5(1)(b) may be interpreted broadly, it is primarily a gate-keeping function to prevent certain Appeals which do not affect one the appealing party’s substantive rights. Justice Schutz concluded that only certain portions of the Order required permission to appeal. Due to the fact certain portions of the Order were not captured under the exceptions in Rule 14.5, Justice Schutz concluded that the Applicants were able to proceed with these select portions of their Appeal, without first obtaining permission to appeal.