PIIKANI NATION v KOSTIC, 2017 ABCA 399
14.15: Ordering the Appeal Record
14.17: Filing the Appeal Record – fast track appeals
14.24: Filing factums – fast track appeals
14.27: Filing Extracts of Key Evidence
14.30: Filing Books of Authorities
14.58: Intervenor status on appeal
14.8: Filing a notice of appeal
14.37: Single appeal judges
The Defendant, Kostic, appealed a Decision of a Case Management Justice in which her Application for leave to apply for indemnification, to declare the Piikani Nation as a vexatious litigant, and to add parties (the “Grant Thornton Group”) was dismissed.
Kostic applied to extend the time to file appeal materials, the Grant Thornton Group cross-applied to strike the Appeal as against them, and Kostic’s former counsel (“SVR”) also cross-applied seeking permission to intervene on the Appeal.
Strekaf J.A. considered Rules 14.37(2)(e) and 14.58(3) and the test to intervene in an Appeal, which was articulated as whether the Applicant will be directly and "specially" affected by the outcome of the Appeal or has “special expertise or a unique perspective relating to the subject matter of the appeal” that will assist the Court. Further factors to be considered include
1. Is the presence of the intervenor necessary for the court to properly decide the matter;
2. Might the intervenor's interest in the proceedings not be fully protected by the parties;
3. Will the intervention unduly delay the proceedings;
4. Will there possibly be prejudice to the parties if intervention is granted;
5. Will intervention widen the dispute between the parties; and
6. Will the intervention transform the court into a political arena?
Following an application of the test to the facts of the case, the Court granted SVR’s Application to intervene.
The Grant Thornton Group’s Cross-Application to strike was made on the grounds that they were not served with the Notice of Appeal within one month of Case Management Judge’s Decision as required by Rule 14.8(1). Justice Strekaf dismissed the Grant Thornton Group’s Cross Application to strike, but held that Kostic was allowed to proceed with only one issue on Appeal and she was required to comply with the filing deadlines calculated from the date of the Decision.View CanLII Details