SCOTT v ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES, 2021 ABCA 249
14.5: Appeals only with permission
The Respondent obtained an ex parte injunction against the Applicant, despite knowing the Applicant was represented by counsel, and not informing the Court of same. The Applicant sought to have the injunction Order set aside. At the hearing of the Application, the Applicant’s counsel advised the Chambers Judge that he would like to argue only the ex parte procedural issue, and leave Charter arguments for another day, essentially bifurcating the Application Hearing. The Chambers Judge refused to bifurcate the Application Hearing, and the Application was adjourned sine die.
The Applicant now seeks permission to Appeal the Chambers Judge’s Decision, pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(b). Rule 14.5(1)(b) requires permission to Appeal any pre-trial decision respecting adjournments, time periods or time limits.
Justice Antonio cited Ozark Resources Ltd v TERIC Power Ltd, 2020 ABCA 51 in noting that an appeal of this nature would usually only be granted if the Appeal raises a serious question of general importance and has a reasonable chance of success. A serious question of general importance “involves a matter of policy, principle or law that might have precedential value.” Justice Antonio found that there was authority to support the Chambers Judge’s decision regarding the bifurcated Hearing, and that the lower Court’s decision was not unreasonable. Her Ladyship found there was no question of general importance and dismissed the Application for permission to Appeal.View CanLII Details