KONG v CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO 0313339

This decision arose from an Application for permission to appeal to a panel of the Court of Appeal from a single‑judge decision. That earlier decision concerned the Applicant’s request to correct alleged factual and contextual errors in a prior ruling denying her Application for court‑appointed counsel. The Applicant argued that the single Judge erred by addressing correction requests under Rule 9.12 rather than Rule 9.13, improperly imposed costs, and misapprehended important facts, amounting to continuing procedural unfairness.

The Court applied the interest of justice test governing Applications for permission to appeal from a single judge to a panel under Rule 14.5(1)(a). Grosse J.A. held that permission will be granted only where the Applicant demonstrates a question of general importance, a possible error of law, an unreasonable exercise of discretion, or a misapprehension of important facts. The Court found none were present. On the procedural issue, the Court held that Rule 9.13 could not apply because the relevant Order had already been entered, and in any event, application of Rule 9.13 would not have changed the outcome. With respect to costs, the Court reaffirmed that costs are discretionary, context‑specific, and not avoided merely because relief is sought by correspondence rather than formal Application. Disagreement with findings or outcomes does not, without more, justify panel review.

Grosse J.A. dismissed the Application for permission to appeal. The had Applicant failed to identify any issue warranting review by a panel, including any error of law, unreasonable exercise of discretion, or misapprehension of material facts. The Court also rejected the Applicant’s challenge to costs, finding no basis to interfere with the discretionary costs ruling. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the permission Application, as the Respondent did not seek costs.