On December 6, 2021, the Court below issued an Order for, among other things, the amount of monthly spousal support the Applicant owed the Respondent (the “December 2021 Order”). That Order further provided that the issue of spousal support could be brought forward for review in 2024 if there was a change of circumstances. In 2024, the Applicant applied to vary spousal support, which was dismissed by an Order in September 2024 (the “September 2024 Order”).

In April 2025, the Applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to seek permission to appeal the December 2021 Order, for permission to appeal that Order, and for an extension of time to appeal the September 2024 Order. Those Applications were denied by Antonio J.A. in May 2025. The Applicant sought permission to appeal the May 2025 decision.

Rules 14.5(1)(a) and 14.5(2) provide that a decision of a single appellate Judge may be appealed only with permission of that Justice.

Permission to appeal the decision of a single appeal Judge is to be granted rarely. The Applicant must show “there is a compelling reason to require the applicant and the respondent to reargue and three judges of the Court of Appeal to decide an issue”.

Citing prior case law, Appeal Justice Antonio noted that an important consideration is whether the Applicant has identified a serious issue justifying another level of review. Assessment of the seriousness of the issue involves consideration of a number of factors: the perceived strength of the argument; the importance of the issue to the parties; and the general importance of the issue within the larger legal system. Merely wanting to reargue the same matters is not sufficient.

Considering these factors, Antonio J.A. denied the Applicant's request for another level of review. He raised no serious or broadly significant legal issues, as his concerns were limited to findings of fact and credibility that were unique to the case and not of general importance. The evidence he relied on was not new and was available at the prior hearing, for which no transcript was filed. The Applicant also failed to show any intention to appeal during the allowable period or a special circumstance that excused the delay. The Court found no reviewable error or likelihood of success and concluded there was no reason to revisit the matter.