CHISHOLM v CHISHOLM

The Applicant sought Permission to Appeal a single Appeal Judge’s decision granting Security for Costs against her in three Appeals, arising from litigation concerning the sale of her parents’ matrimonial home.

The underlying dispute began when, on November 30, 2023, the Court ordered the termination of co-ownership and sale of the property. The Applicant subsequently applied to set aside that Order, but her Application was dismissed on December 13, 2023, with the Court advising that an Appeal was her proper remedy. Rather than successfully appealing the original Order, the Applicant commenced additional proceedings challenging both the sale Order and the subsequent dismissal of her Application. A further Application was dismissed on January 16, 2026, with costs, and an Originating Application seeking declaratory relief regarding the November 30, 2023 order was dismissed on February 19, 2026. On June 1, 2026, Justice Feehan granted a Security for Costs Application in relation to the second and third Appeals.

The Applicant sought permission under Rule 14.5(1)(a) of the Rules to appeal the Security for Costs decision to a panel. Permission to appeal a decision of a single Appeal Judge must be sought from the same Judge who made the decision that is to be appealed: Rule 14.5(2). The Court noted that its role under Rule 14.5 was a gatekeeping function and that permission to appeal would only be granted where the Applicant demonstrated a question of general importance, a possible error of law, an unreasonable exercise of discretion, or a misapprehension of important facts. The Court further clarifies that an Applicant is required to identify a serious issue warranting another level of review and to demonstrate more than a merely non-frivolous argument.

Justice Feehan concluded that the Applicant had failed to satisfy this test. The Security for Costs decision had been based on the conclusion that the Chambers Judges were correct in finding that her Applications constituted collateral attacks on earlier Orders that had not been appealed, were frivolous and vexatious, and had no reasonable prospect of success. The Court found that she had not identified any serious issue arising from the Security for Costs Order itself that justified review by a panel of the Court. Accordingly, the Application for permission to appeal was dismissed.