OKUNS v ALBERTA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

Pursuant to Rules 14.5(1)(a) and 14.5(2), the Applicant sought permission to appeal a previous decision decided by Feehan J.A. That Decision denied the Applicant’s previous application to restore an appeal to the record pursuant to Rules 14.47 and 14.65(1), as his appeal was struck pursuant to Rule 14.64(a) for failing to file an Appeal Record within four months following the Notice of Appeal, contrary to Rule 14.16(3)(b). Pursuant to Rule 14.65(3)(a), the Applicant’s appeal was later deemed abandoned for failing to take any steps in restoring the appeal within six months of its striking.

In the previous decision, Feehan J.A. determined that there was little merit to the Applicant’s appeal. On this Application, the Applicant claimed that the earlier decision misapprehended facts, and that evidence demonstrating his diligent and good faith attempts to pursue the matter and comply with procedural requirements was overlooked. The Applicant claimed he suffered from an obstructive sleep disorder which reasonably contributed to his delay in bringing an application to restore the appeal. However, the Respondent claims that the Applicant did not identify a serious issue justifying another level of review and that the Applicant only brought up the obstructive sleep disorder in oral argument and provided no medical evidence to support his claim.

The Court acknowledged that for an application to appeal a decision of a single Judge of the Court to a panel, an applicant must demonstrate that there is: a question of general importance, an unreasonable exercise of discretion, a potential error of law, or a misapprehension of important facts. At least one of the substantial criteria should be established, otherwise it would not be in the public interest to review the single Judge’s decision.

Appeal Justice Feehan agreed with the Respondent’s argument and found that the Applicant had not raised a question of general importance. The Applicant’s concerns related to evidence in findings of fact that were unique to his file, and which were not of general importance to the larger legal system. The Court determined that there was no error of law in the previous decision, no unreasonable exercise of discretion, nor was there a misapprehension of important facts. The Application was dismissed.