BOSSE v CARRIGAN, 2026 ABCA 267

The Applicant applied for permission to appeal and for an Order extending time to appeal.

The matter had previously gone to binding Arbitration, resulting in an interim Award. The Applicant filed Applications seeking to overturn the interim Award. When the Applications were heard (the "November 2025 Proceedings"), the Chambers Justice sent the parties outside the courtroom to see if they could reach an agreement. The agreed terms of the parties were read into the record. The Chambers Justice also struck the Applicant's Applications, as he had not obtained the required leave, and confirmed and made enforceable most of the interim Award.

Counsel were to agree on the precise form of Order after the proceedings. However, after failing to do so, they eventually returned to the same Chambers Justice for assistance. The resulting Order was filed.

The Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal of that Order on the basis that the Order resulted from a “contested form-of-order process without a contested evidentiary adjudication on the merits" while multiple issues remained unresolved before the Courts.

The Court held that the transcripts from the November 25 Proceedings made it clear that, except for the provision striking the Applicant's Applications, the Order was a Consent Order. As such, permission to appeal was required pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(d). Fagnan J.A. confirmed that the test for permission to appeal requires that the proposed appeal raise an important question of law or precedent, have a reasonable prospect of success, and not result in undue delay or prejudice.

The Court found that permission should not be granted. The proposed Appeal raised no important issue of law or precedent and had no reasonable chance of success. It would not resolve any fundamental issues in dispute and would instead distract the parties from the real issues, consume further time and resources, and not move the matter forward. The Court also found no exceptional circumstances relating to the November 2025 Proceedings. The Applicant was present, his counsel was present, and the terms of the parties' agreement were read into the record. Further, the Applicant's dissatisfaction with the results of the underlying Arbitration did not affect the analysis.