The Applicant applied for permission to appeal a Decision of a single Justice of the Court of Appeal, pursuant to former Rule 505. Veldhuis J.A. considered the old Rule and new Rule 14.5, observing that there were no decisions under the new Rule, but that the test under the old Rule was well established. Justice Veldhuis, citing prior leading authority, articulated the test under former Rule 505: Leave to Appeal the Decision of a single Appellate Justice will be granted on a serious question of general importance. Without such a question, the test becomes whether there is a possible error of law, discretion has been unreasonably exercised, or the Decision was based on a misapprehension of important facts. Her Ladyship held that the Applicant did not demonstrate that a serious question of general importance was raised. The Applicant also failed to demonstrate an error of law, unreasonable exercise of discretion, or misapprehension of important facts. The initial Decision granting leave to re-argue was not a final Order, nor was it determinative of any rights as between the parties; rather, it provided the parties the opportunity to ensure that the granting or denial of Leave to Appeal was based on a full review of the facts and law. The Application for Leave to Appeal was denied since it was contrary to the philosophy of the Rules to facilitate potentially endless Applications, and no further Appeal was allowed. Veldhuis J.A. further noted that the request for Leave to Appeal should have been heard by the same Justice who made the Decision, but an exception was made because the original Justice was unavailable and all parties consented.