COURCHESNE v MAZUR, 2026 ABCA 276

The Applicant sought permission to appeal a decision denying her Application for an extension of time to appeal a prior Parenting Order (“Parenting Order”), pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(i).

Following the Parenting Order, the Applicant obtained the transcript but believed it did not accurately reflect the Hearing. She requested access to the court audio recording, which was denied. The Applicant did not challenge that denial or pursue an appeal of the Parenting Order until sixteen months later, when she applied for an extension of time to appeal.

The Chambers Judge dismissed the Application. While the Applicant argued that the denial of access to the audio recording impeded her ability to pursue her Appeal, the Chambers Judge concluded that the denial did not prevent her from appealing.

Justice Grosse declined to grant the Applicant permission to appeal. The Court held that a further appeal in a family law matter would only be available on a question of law or jurisdiction, and found that the proposed Appeal raised neither. Rather, the Applicant sought to challenge a discretionary decision denying an extension of time to appeal and to have the Court reweigh the relevant factors.

The Court further held that, even if a question of law or jurisdiction had been identified, leave would not have been granted. Any legal issue was fact-specific and lacked broader importance, the proposed Appeal had little prospect of success given the deferential standard of review applicable to discretionary decisions, and no reviewable error was apparent. In addition, subsequent enforcement orders, case management proceedings, and an upcoming parenting trial meant that the proposed Appeal would serve no practical purpose.

The Application for permission to appeal was dismissed.