STUBICAR v CALGARY (SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD), 2023 ABCA
1.4: Procedural orders
14.5: Appeals only with permission
14.37: Single appeal judges
The Applicant had filed and scheduled a Judicial Review Application. Right before the Application, and without notice to the Respondents, the Applicant sought an adjournment of that Application. The Chambers Judge made a Costs Order directing the Applicant to pay solicitor-client Costs for the last-minute adjournment and adjourned the application sine die.
Before Antonio J.A., the Applicant sought a stay of the Costs Order pending its Appeal. Justice Antonio found that the Applicant had to first obtain permission to Appeal the Costs Order. She granted the Applicant an extension of time to seek permission to Appeal but ultimately denied the Application for permission to Appeal.
Regarding Appeals to a Court of Appeal Panel, Rule 14.5(1)(b) states that permission to Appeal must be obtained for any pre-Trial Decision respecting adjournments, time periods or time limits. Similarly, Rule 14.5(1)(e) states that permission must be obtained if one wants to Appeal a Costs Decision. However, a Decision is not “as to costs only” if a related substantive Decision is also being appealed.
After canvassing the law, Antonio J.A. found that a decision to adjourn does not qualify as a “related substantive decision” as contemplated by Rule 14.5(1)(e) and held that the Applicant had to obtain permission to Appeal the Costs Order. The Appeal Justice exercised her discretion under Rule 14.37(2)(c) to extend the relevant period during which the Applicant could Appeal because an Application for permission to Appeal must be considered on the merits.
However, Antonio J.A. did not grant the Applicant permission to Appeal. In refusing permission to Appeal, Antonio J.A. explained that the following factors are relevant: (a) whether the Appeal raised an issue of an important question of law or precedent, (b) whether the Appeal had a reasonable chance of success, and (c) whether the Appeal would unduly hinder the progress of the Action or cause undue prejudice. The Applicant had failed to demonstrate a reasonable chance of success on Appeal and thus her leave Application failed. Furthermore, the Chamber Judge’s Decision to issue the Costs Order and adjourn the Judicial Review Application sine die was entitled to deference under Rule 1.4.View CanLII Details