The Applicant sought permission to Appeal a scheduling Order (the “Order”) under Rule 14.5(1)(b). The Applicant also sought a Stay to prevent an Applications Judge from releasing her decisions regarding the Respondents’ Security for Costs Applications (the “Stay Application”).

Ho J.A. cited Pander v Chopra, 2023 ABCA 249 for the test for permission to Appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(b), which requires the Applicant to show: (i) a serious question of general importance, (ii) a reasonable chance of success on Appeal, and (iii) that the Appeal will not unduly hinder the progress of the Action or cause undue prejudice to the parties, without any proportionate benefit.

Having considered the Applicant’s arguments, Ho J.A. held that the test for permission to Appeal was not met and that the Rule 14.5(1)(b) Application should be denied. Specifically, there was no question of general importance that might have precedential value, and the Appeal of the Order did not have a reasonable chance of success on Appeal.

Ho J.A. dismissed the Stay Application on the basis that it was premature. Specifically, it remained unknown whether the Respondents’ Security for Costs Applications would be granted, or how much security would be required to be posted and by when. Further, the Applicant might well post security within the required timeframe, obviating the need for a Stay Order. And if the Applicant chose to appeal any Order for Security for Costs, such Appeal would be heard by a Justice of the Court of King’s Bench and a Stay might be sought at that time.