The Parties sought direction of the Court regarding whether permission to Appeal was required for cross-Appeals arising out of arbitral proceedings, and, if permission was required, the Parties the sought that permission.

By way of background, the Applicant had appealed an arbitral Costs Award to the Court of Queen’s Bench, as it was then, taking the position that the automatic right of Appeal arose from the arbitration agreement. The Respondent asserted that the Applicant required permission to Appeal. The Chambers Judge agreed with the Respondent and struck the Applicant’s Appeal. The Chambers Judge opted not to award the Respondent solicitor-client Costs pursuant to the arbitration agreement, leading to the Respondent’s cross-Appeal for permission to Appeal the Chambers Judge’s Cost Award.

Justice Pentelechuk noted that the Applications raise questions regarding the scope of the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to hear Appeals from the Court of King’s Bench in arbitral proceedings. Noting that a single Justice of the Court of Appeal could opine on the issue, Justice Pentelechuk stated that there was merit in having a full panel consider the issue. Justice Pentelechuk further noted that the Respondent was essentially taking the position that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear the Appeal, which Application would require a full panel of the Court of Appeal pursuant to Rule 14.74.

In considering the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, Justice Pentelechuk noted that broad discretion is awarded under Rule 14.4. Further, Rule 14.5 enumerates instances where permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal is required. Ultimately, Justice Pentelechuk granted the Parties permission to Appeal the question of whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear both Appeals in front of a panel of Court of Appeal Justices.