ECCLES v ECCLES

The Applicant sought permission to appeal a Procedural Order directing the parties to a two-day Streamlined Trial on non-parenting issues and prohibiting further Applications before Trial without leave of the Court. The decision was made at a Case Management Meeting on September 18, 2025, after the Applicant failed to attend an earlier meeting and her last-minute request for a further adjournment was not granted. The Applicant also sought permission to appeal the Order denying her request to adjourn the Case Management Meeting and filed a Notice of Constitutional Question (the “Notice”). The Applicant argued that the exclusion of parenting issues from the Streamlined Trial denied her access to the courts to seek parenting relief and was discriminatory against her as a woman and survivor of domestic violence.

Pursuant to Rule 14.5, permission to appeal is required for scheduling and adjournment orders to prevent litigation by instalment and unmeritorious interlocutory appeals. To obtain permission, an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed appeal raises an important question of law or precedent of general importance, has a reasonable chance of success, and will not unduly delay or prejudice the parties.  

Friesen J.A. held that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the test for permission to appeal. The proposed Appeal did not raise any question of law or precedent extending beyond the interests of the parties and had no reasonable prospect of success. The Court found that the Case Management Judge’s decisions were highly discretionary, grounded in the parties’ extensive litigation history, and directed to move the matter to Trial. The Court further held that allowing the Appeal would delay the resolution of the Action and hinder its progress. 

The Court also rejected the Applicant’s constitutional arguments. It found that the Notice failed to identify any specific Charter breach arising from the Procedural Orders under appeal and lacked the evidentiary foundation necessary to support allegations of systemic discrimination or broader constitutional violations.

Lastly, Friesen J.A. clarified that the Procedural Order did not preclude a future determination of parenting issues but merely directed that non-parenting issues proceed to Trial first.

Accordingly, the Application was denied.