The Applicant, pursuant to Rules 14.5(1)(a) and 14.5(2), sought permission to appeal a Decision denying an Application to restore its Appeal after being struck for failing to meet filing deadlines (the “Application”).

Feth J.A. cited Al-Ghamdi v Alberta, 2016 ABCA 403 for the test for granting permission to Appeal an Order of a single Judge under Rule 14.5(2). Namely, the Appellant must establish that the Order to be reviewed (a) raises a question of general importance which on its own deserves panel review, (b) rests on a reviewable and material issue of law worthy of panel review, (c) involves an unreasonable exercise of discretion which had a meaningful effect on the outcome of the Decision and the outcome is worthy of panel review, or (d) rests on a palpable and overriding error of important facts affecting the Order made and the Order is worthy of panel review.

Citing Alberta Health Services v Wang, 2017 ABCA 261, Feth J.A. continued to say that the Court may also consider whether there are conflicting Decisions on the point, the standard of review that would be applied on the Appeal, and whether there are other good reasons why a full panel of the Court should review the Order under Appeal. Importantly, new arguments are not properly presented on Appeal, and certainly not as the basis for permission to Appeal.

In response to the Applicant’s argument that there was no reason for it to believe the Appeal was to be fast-tracked under Rule 14.14(2), Feth J.A. commented that the Appeal Decision met the criteria of a fast-track Appeal as set out in Rule 14.14(1), and that fast-track Appeals are not limited to those matters otherwise specifically set out in Rule 14.14(2).

In response to the Applicant’s argument that the Court had misinterpreted Rule 2.23(3)(a), Feth J.A. stated that given the permissive language in Rule 2.23, it is not mandatory that permission be granted. 

Having found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate why the interests of justice would be served by allowing a further level of review or that there had been any error in principle in reaching those discretionary decisions, Feth J.A. denied the Application.