The parties were involved in a complex dispute over child custody and access. In 2014, the Court ordered that the child’s grandmother could supervise the father’s access to the child. In January 2015, a second Order rescinded that direction for reasons of practicality, as the grandmother resided in British Columbia and the child resided in Alberta. In March 2015, a Chambers Judge ordered the restoration of the original Order permitting the grandmother to be a supervisor for the father’s visits. The Order followed a prior adjournment Application in which the matter was not argued or decided.

The Defendant father appealed the Decision, arguing that under Rule 9.13 the Chambers Judge could not change the previous Order without following a more rigid process. The Court of Appeal stated that, although the power of the Courts under Rule 9.13 to vary a pronounced Judgment must be exercised cautiously, no particular procedure is required under that Rule. Further, it is not inappropriate to use the Rule to deal with overlooked matters. The Court of Appeal held that there was no reviewable error to the Chamber Judge’s Decision, and dismissed the Appeal.