The Applicants sought permission under Rule 14.5 to appeal a decision of a single appellate Justice who had earlier denied their Application to extend time to Appeal a prior Order. The Applicants argued that the decision involved errors and raised issues that deserved consideration by a full panel. The Court considered Rule 14.5 stating that permission to appeal will only be granted where the decision raises a question of general importance, rests on a material and reviewable legal issue, involves an unreasonable exercise of discretion with a meaningful effect, or is based on a palpable and overriding error of significant fact. Simply re-arguing previous points or alleging factual mistakes without evidence is insufficient.

Antonio J.A. found that the Applicants failed to meet the threshold for permission under Rule 14.5. The Applicants did not identify a question of general importance or a material error that would justify a panel review. Their submissions mostly repeated arguments from their initial application and did not point to any legal or factual error warranting intervention. Antonio J.A. noted that the Applicants had not satisfied the applicable legal criteria. The Court emphasized that Rule 14.5 is intended to limit unnecessary panel reviews, and that permission is not granted merely because an applicant disagrees with the outcome. The Application was denied, and costs were awarded against the Applicants.