Pursuant to Rule 14.5, the Appellant applied for permission to appeal an order of Associate Chief Justice Rooke declaring him a vexatious litigant. On the application, the Appellant submitted that permission should be granted because ACJ Rooke erred in finding that he was forum shopping and he was not given an opportunity to be heard on the underlying application.

The Court of Appeal set out the test for obtaining permission to appeal when the applicant is a vexatious litigant, specifically: (1) is there an important question of law or precedent?; (2) is there a reasonable change of success on appeal?; and (3) will the delay unduly hinder the progress of an action or cause undue prejudice?

The Court found that to meet the requirement of a reasonable chance of success on appeal, where the Appeal is subject to a deferential standard of appellate review, the burden is high as it is unlikely that the Court of Appeal will overturn discretionary orders. The reasonableness standard applied in this case as a declaration that a party is a vexatious litigant is a discretionary decision.

The Court denied permission to appeal as the Appellant failed to raise a serious question of law or precedence and there was no reasonable chance of success on appeal.