The Applicant was involved in two separate incidents leading to actions against the Calgary Police Service. The first incident involved the Applicant's arrest for trespassing at a Calgary mall, and the second involved his arrest for assault with a weapon.

The Applicant sought permission to appeal two decisions of Justice Woolley, one on recusal and one refusing to rescind the Case Management Officer’s directions and denying advanced Costs, pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(a). Rule 14.5(2) requires an Applicant to seek permission to Appeal.

The Applicant largely reargued his previous position or advanced new arguments for why he should be entitled to advanced Costs. The Court clarified that a Rule 14.5(1)(a) Application is not a rehearing, nor an opportunity to make new arguments on the merits.

Further, the Applicant argued that the Case Management Officer did not have jurisdiction to refuse to accept a new Affidavit for consideration. The Court noted that the Case Management Officer’s decision was merely procedural, and that case management officers make important procedural decisions on a daily basis, as provided for by Rules 14.36(1), 14.39, and 14.56.

Thus, the Court concluded that the Applicant did not identify any question of general importance, possible error of law, unreasonable exercise of discretion, or misapprehension of important facts in the Court’s refusal to grant his request for advanced Costs. Further, neither the arguments made originally, nor those newly advanced, fell within or even meaningfully addressed the standards for allowing an Appeal. The Court dismissed the Application and invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c), permitting an Order to be submitted without the Applicant’s approval as to content and form.