This Appeal concerned, among other issues, a decision of the Chambers Judge to dismiss the Appellant’s Application for an Order which would have granted an oppression remedy under s.357(1) of the Cooperatives Act (the “Act”) against the Respondent (“Refusal to Grant the Oppression Remedy”).

The Respondent sought to resist the Appeal of the Refusal to Grant the Oppression Remedy, on the basis the Appellant required permission to appeal pursuant to s.360 of the Act and in accordance with Rule 14.5(1)(f). The Court considered both the wording of Rule 14.5 as well as s.360 of the Act and found that the Respondent’s position was correct; an Appeal of the Chamber’s Judge’s decision relating to s.357(1) of the Act could not be acted upon by the Court without a grant of prior permission by the Court.

The Appellant proposed that the panel could grant permission to appeal nunc pro tunc (“now for then”), but the Court rejected this proposition on the basis it would reduce the permission requirement imposed by the Legislature to a dispensable irregularity as opposed to a gate keeping decision the Legislature had intended. The Court determined that permission to appeal was required by the Rules and that it had not been obtained in the circumstances which was sufficient in and of itself to dismiss the Appeal of the Refusal to Grant the Oppression Remedy.