The self-represented Applicant, Salim Rana (“Mr. Rana”), sought permission to Appeal O’Ferrall J.A.’s Decision denying Mr. Rana’s Application to restore the underlying Appeal (the “Restore Application”). Mr. Rana contended that he was denied a fair hearing because His Lordship did not hear oral submissions from Mr. Rana.

Mr. Rana had initially filed a caveat against his mother’s land. He was then served with a notice to take proceedings on his caveat. He did so and in the course of that proceeding he sought to have his mother’s Power of Attorney declared invalid. That Application was denied. Mr. Rana appealed; but his Appeal was struck and later deemed abandoned for failure to comply with deadlines in the Rules for filing an Appeal record under Rule 14.8. In the Restore Application, Justice O’Ferrall found that there was no evidence in the Applicant’s material that the Appeal record had been ordered or prepared, nor had the Order for the Appeal record been filed and served on the Respondent, as required by the Rules.

Justice O’Ferrall noted that Rule 14.5(1)(a) requires an Applicant to obtain permission to Appeal the Decision of a single Appeal Judge. This requirement serves a gatekeeping function and requires the Applicant to demonstrate why it is in the interests of justice to have a further level of review. O’Ferrall J.A. emphasized that the test for permission to Appeal the Decision of a single Appeal Judge is whether the Applicant is able to demonstrate that there is: (1) a question of general importance; (2) a possible error of law; (3) an unreasonable exercise of discretion; or (4) a misapprehension of important facts.

Justice O’Ferrall found that none of the foregoing tests had been met and that the pattern of delay exhibited by Mr. Rana over the course of the proceedings was unacceptable and should not be rewarded with a further level of Appeal. Accordingly, His Lordship denied Mr. Rana’s Application to Appeal.