The self-represented Applicant, Mr. Kabir, sought permission to appeal a decision that dismissed his application for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal (the “Decision”).

Mr. Kabir was a registered nurse subject to proceedings before the College of Registered Nurses of Alberta. These proceedings involved the Complaints Director investigating the matter, which were then referred to a hearing before a Tribunal. Mr. Kabir applied to review the pre-hearing conduct of the Complaints Director; however, the application was stayed on the basis that Judicial Review was premature until the Tribunal concluded its hearing. Despite the stay, Mr. Kabir brought two further applications before the Tribunal concluded the hearing, relying on interim rulings that the Tribunal would not adjudicate the Complaints Director’s pre-hearing conduct during the hearing. Both applications were dismissed as premature and collateral attacks on earlier Orders.

Mr. Kabir then applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal the most recent Order. That application was dismissed, resulting in the Decision which Mr. Kabir sought permission to appeal.

Pursuant to Rules 14.5(1)(a) and 14.5(2), permission to appeal a single Appellate Judge’s decision may be granted if the applicant establishes that there is a serious question of general importance, a possible error of law, an unreasonable exercise of discretion, or a misapprehension of important facts. Further, such permission may only be granted if there is a compelling reason for the matter to be reargued before three Court of Appeal Judges.

In this case, the Application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

First, Mr. Kabir repeated arguments already considered and rejected by the lower courts. Second, Mr. Kabir did not engage with any authorities cited in the Decision, nor did he identify any issues or potential errors. Third, while Mr. Kabir raised some new arguments, none were found to have merit. For example, he argued that he was not given a chance to present oral argument on his application although he had consented to that application being decided in writing. Rule 14.51 expressly allows applications to be dealt with by a single Appeal Judge without oral argument. Lastly, the Applicant introduced constitutional arguments, asserting that he was deprived of his right to judicially review the pre-hearing conduct of the Complaints Director. However, Ho J.A. clarified that none of the past decisions addressed if Judicial Review was available, only when such an application may be brought.

Ultimately, Ho J.A. found that Mr. Kabir did not identify any serious question of general importance, error of law, unreasonable exercise of discretion, or misapprehension of important facts to warrant permission to appeal. As a result, the Application for permission to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the Respondent pursuant to Rule 14.88. The Court prepared the resulting Order pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).