The Applicant had previously sought to move cities with the child of the Applicant and the Respondent. The Respondent was granted primary parenting by the Provincial Court, thus precluding the Applicant’s desired move with the child. The Applicant appealed this Decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench. That Appeal was denied. The Applicant then applied for permission for a further Appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal, pursuant to Rule 12.71.

Justice Greckol explained that to obtain permission for such an Appeal pursuant to Rule 12.71, the Applicant must demonstrate: (1) that there is an important question of law or precedent; (2) that there is a reasonable chance of success on appeal; and (3) that the delay involved will not unduly hinder the progress of the Action or cause undue prejudice.

With respect to the first prong of this test, Her Ladyship ruled that the questions raised in this Application regarding the Trial Judge’s treatment of the leading cases on mobility of a parent, and the Appeal Judge’s failure to correct any potentially erroneous analysis were important questions of law or precedent. Justice Greckol held that the second prong was also met: the Applicant’s proposed Appeal had a reasonable chance of success.

While Justice Greckol acknowledged that the Appeal would cause delay, Her Ladyship also recognized that the mobility issue was central to the overarching divorce proceedings. As such, any delay caused by the Appeal would not be undue.

Justice Greckol therefore granted permission to Appeal pursuant to Rule 12.71.