The Applicant father applied to the Court of Appeal for, among other things, permission to appeal a Consent Order of a Case Management Judge in a high-conflict family law proceeding, as required under Rule 14.5(1)(d). The Case Management Judge determined that the three children of the Applicant and Respondent mother should resume counselling services and then set out a division of payment for those services.

The Applicant submitted that the Case Management Judge failed to consider key evidence, including the limited effectiveness of therapy, the preference for publicly provided counselling, and the financial impact on his other children.

The Court noted that the test for permission to appeal “is a stringent one”. In the family law context, the overarching considering is the best interest of the children.

The Applicant filed his materials late, so he first required an extension of time to apply for permission to appeal by operation of Rules 14.44 and 14.8. On this front, it was found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate an intention to appeal within the prescribed time and provided insufficient justification for the delay. Feehan J.A. found that ignorance of procedural rules did not excuse the failure to meet deadlines, even for self-represented litigants.

As for the Applicant’s permission to appeal the Consent Order, he also did not meet the required test. The Applicant raised no important question of law or precedent on his objection to the children receiving counselling services. His Appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying why he should be given permission to appeal a Judgment to which he consented. It was found to be in the best interests of the children to continue counselling services, given this high-conflict family situation.