In this decision, the Applicant sought to appeal an Order pronounced in April 2025 (the “April Order”). The April Order arose, in turn, from the Applicant’s appeal of a February 2024 permanent Guardianship Order granted to the Respondent regarding her child (the “Appeal”). The Applicant was granted multiple extensions to order the necessary transcripts for the Appeal. The April Order granted a final extension to July 10, 2025, requiring the Applicant to provide an Affidavit and receipt confirming that the necessary transcripts for the Appeal were ordered. Otherwise, the Appeal would be automatically dismissed under paragraph 4 of the April Order.

The Court set out that, in order for the Applicant to obtain permission to appeal the April Order, she was required to meet the test under Rule 14.5(1)(b) because paragraphs 1 and 2 of the April Order related to decisions respecting adjournments, time periods or time limits. The test is substantively the same as the general test under Rule 14.5 where the Applicant must establish: (1) an important question of law or precedent, (2) a reasonable chance of success on appeal, and (3) that the delay will not unduly hinder the progress of the action or cause undue prejudice. Ho J.A. cited Ozark Resources Ltd v TERIC Power Ltd, 2020 ABCA 51 for the principle that decisions regarding adjournments and scheduling matters are primarily exercises of discretion and are reviewed on a highly deferential standard.

Given the highly deferential standard of review, the Court found the Applicant did not meet the test for permission to appeal in relation to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the April Order. Justice Ho acknowledged the Applicant’s concerns over paragraph 4 and whether there is access to justice for Indigenous and self-represented litigants who are unable to afford transcript costs. The Court found, however, that it was premature to appeal this aspect of the April Order as the Appeal had not been dismissed yet and further developments from the next “speak-to” appearance in July could affect a potential appeal.

The Court noted that it was still possible for the Applicant to comply with the April Order by filing the required transcripts, which would allow her to pursue the Appeal. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the portion of the Application for permission to appeal in relation to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the April Order.