The case involves a long-standing dispute between the Piikani Nation and Dale McMullen. At issue were breaches of Court Orders related to the management of complex legal proceedings. In this decision, Shaner J.A. considered Mr. McMullen’s appeal of two 2024 decisions from Court of King’s Bench, finding him in civil contempt, Piikani Nation v McMullen, 2024 ABKB 264 (the “Contempt Decision”), and a decision imposing sanctions on him for civil contempt, Piikani Nation v McMullen, 2024 ABKB 575 (the “Sanction Decision”).

The Contempt Decision found Mr. McMullen in contempt for (i) failing to attend for cross-examination pursuant to a Court Order; and (ii) failing to turn over to counsel to the Nation privileged records which belonged to it, and using those records in certain affidavits. Numerous sanctions were then imposed on Mr. McMullen for his contempt in the Sanction Decision.

Mr. McMullen filed a Notice of Appeal relating to the Contempt Decision on June 13, 2024, outside the deadline for doing so. The appeal of the Contempt Decision was eventually deemed abandoned because Mr. McMullen missed multiple deadlines. On November 5, 2024, Mr. McMullen filed applications to restore the appeal and for permission to appeal, pursuant to Rules 14.47 and 14.65. Mr. McMullen also filed the appeal relating to the Sanction Decision, along with an application for permission to appeal, on November 1, 2024, within the time for doing so.

Shaner J.A. found that permission to appeal was not required in the circumstances. Permission was sought because in February of 2013, the Case Management Judge in the Court below made an Order restricting all parties to the various related proceedings from commencing or bringing any proceedings without leave. Under Rule 14.5(1)(j), permission is required for any appeal by a person who has been declared a “vexatious litigant” in the court appealed from. There was direction from the Case Management Officer that this Rule applied to the February 2013 Order.

Appeal Justice Shaner found that McMullen did not require permission to appeal because the February 2013 Order was not aimed at addressing vexatious conduct but at rather managing complex litigation. The Court of Appeal relied on a similar conclusion it reached in a recent decision regarding the Nation’s action against Liliana Kostic: Piikani Nation v Kostic, 2025 ABCA 7. Ms. Kostic is subject to the same February 2013 Case Management Order as Mr. McMullen.

Mr. McMullen’s Application to restore the Contempt Decision appeal was dismissed due to his failure to act promptly and provide a sufficient explanation for the delay. Shaner J.A. also found there was “no arguable merit,” as Mr. McMullen's grounds were largely disagreements with factual findings and procedural issues that did not demonstrate any procedural unfairness.

Because Mr. McMullen filed his Notice of Appeal regarding the Sanctions Decision on time, and he did not require permission to appeal, he could appeal that decision as of right. As such, Shaner J.A. declined to comment further in respect of that appeal.