BRYAN v PITURA

The Applicant sought to schedule an Appeal of an interim child support order in advance of a Trial on the merits of the child support issue. The Applicant took the position that he had a right of appeal and that the Court must schedule the Appeal upon his Application. The Court disagreed on the basis that an Appeal would be an unnecessary waste of judicial resources.

The Trial on the child support issue was scheduled for May 28, 2026. The potential Appeal dates suggested by the Applicant were from mid-April to mid-May of 2026. The Court set out that its primary responsibility in scheduling matters was to be a steward of the limited judicial resources, and that hearing an Appeal of an interim order a few weeks before the Trial of the matter would be a waste of court resources.

Justice Feasby outlined the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its processes and noted that, while this inherent jurisdiction is subordinate to statutes such as the Judicature Act, that subordination only stands insofar as it does not constrain the Court’s ability to fulfil its role. Justice Feasby referred to Rule 1.2, which provides that the purpose of the rules is to ensure claims are resolved in a timely and cost-effective manner, and requires that the parties must use publicly funded Court resources effectively.

Justice Feasby also referred to Rule 1.4, which empowers the Court to make any order necessary to implement and advance the purpose and intention of Rule 1.2. In reviewing the facts of the Appeal, the Court noted that the financial stakes of the Appeal were insignificant in light of the upcoming Trial of the issue. The Court held that justice was best served in this matter by denying the Application to schedule an Appeal.