This was an Application by the Applicant, Kelly Eccles, for (1) permission to appeal a Procedural Order of a Case Management Judge of the Court of King’s Bench, (2) an extension of time to bring that Application, (3) a stay pending appeal, and (4) an order appointing counsel for the parties’ child.

The Procedural Order in question set various litigation deadlines for Applications and cross-Applications between the parties. As it was a pre-trial scheduling decision, permission to appeal was required, pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(b). The Applicant filed her Application for permission outside the one-month period prescribed by Rules 14.8(2)(a)(iii) and (b), and therefore sought an extension under Rule 14.37(2)(c).

In explaining her delay, Ms. Eccles asserted that she was unaware of the terms of the Order because the Case Management Judge had invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c), which dispenses with the need for parties to approve the form of the order before filing. Justice Shaner held that this argument was not persuasive, as Ms. Eccles was present when the Order was pronounced and therefore knew its effect.

Justice Shaner dismissed the Application to extend time, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed period, no compelling justification for the delay, and no reasonable prospect of success. The Order appealed from was purely procedural, attracting a deferential standard of review, and all deadlines it contained had already expired, rendering the Appeal moot.

Because the extension Application failed, permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(b) was also refused. The Court held that the proposed Appeal raised no question of general importance or law, had no reasonable chance of success, and would not advance the litigation.

Finally, as all prior Applications were dismissed, the requests for a stay and for appointment of counsel for the child were not considered, and the Applications were dismissed in their entirety.