NOSCENCO v BAGAYEVA, 2016 ABCA 242
2.23: Assistance before the Court
14.5: Appeals only with permission
The Appellant, Mr. Noscenco, sought to appeal a Security for Costs Award awarded against him in the Court of Queen’s Bench.
Not being represented by Counsel, Mr. Noscenco was not aware of Rule 14.5, and that he could only bring his Appeal with permission. The Respondent sought to strike the Appeal. Watson J.A. noted that Mr. Noscenco did not have a clear understanding of the , and so provided him with an adjournment to file his evidence so that permission to appeal could be sought pursuant to (h). Mr. Noscenco filed his materials and the Application proceeded.
Watson J.A. held that there was no issue with the Security for Costs Order made by the Case Management Judge who was entitled to significant deference. Further, although Mr. Noscenco owned a house in Calgary, it was unlikely that he would be able to pay the Security for Costs amount of $25,000; moreover, he had already failed to pay other fairly modest Costs Orders in the Court of Queen’s Bench. Accordingly, Mr. Noscenco’s Appeal was struck.
Justice Watson also noted that Mr. Noscenco had some assistance from a non-lawyer friend in making submissions before the Court. His Lordship noted that it allowed this rather unorthodox proceeding because counsel for the proposed Respondent had no objections; however, the Court was not setting a precedent in this regard and did not suggest that the procedure followed was an appropriate interpretation or application of Rule 2.23.View CanLII Details