The Applicant applied for permission to Appeal a Decision by Justice Clackson which dismissed Appeals of two Orders by two different Masters in Chambers. The first Master’s Order was a Consent Order and the parties agreed that permission to Appeal was required by Rule 14.5(1)(d). While the Applicant sought to Appeal the three decision makers’ decisions (Justice Clackson and the two Masters), the Court determined that, pursuant to Rule 14.4(4), only Justice Clackson’s Decision may be Appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Applicant also sought final relief. A single Judge of the Court of Appeal may only grant Applications that are “incidental to an appeal” (R. 14.37(1)) such as granting permission to appeal (R. 14.37(2)).

The Court applied the test for permission to Appeal an Order made with the consent of the parties. Pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(d): the Appeal must raise an important question of law or precedent, show a reasonable prospect of success, and show that a delay would not unduly prejudice the other party or unduly hinder the progress of the Action (Macdonald v King, 2021 ABCA 149).

The Court denied permission to Appeal, finding that the Applicant had not shown that his proposed Appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The Court found that it was unnecessary then to address whether an Appeal would cause undue delay or undue prejudice to the Respondent.