ROBINSON v MARWOOD, 2026 ABKB 558

The Appellant appealed an Arbitration Award and attempted to advance additional questions of law beyond those permitted by a prior Court Order. The issue was whether the Appellant could expand the scope of the Appeal despite directions that only two specific grounds could proceed. The Court considered the requirements for commencing an Appeal by Originating Application and the circumstances in which a Procedural Order may be varied.

Justice Eamon noted that the earlier Order had struck several grounds of appeal, required the filing of an Amended Originating Application, and expressly prohibited the addition of new grounds. Despite that direction, the Appellant’s written brief advanced several new alleged errors of law. The Appellant argued that the surviving grounds were broad enough to encompass those additional arguments.

The Court rejected that position. Justice Eamon held that the prior Order limited the Appeal to the two specific grounds that survived the Strike Application. Rule 3.2 required the Appellant to clearly state the basis of the Appeal, and that requirement promoted the foundational objectives in Rule 1.2, including identifying the real issues, facilitating efficient resolution, and ensuring timely and open communication. While Rule 9.15(4)(c) permitted the Court to vary a interlocutory Procedural Order, the Appellant had not applied to vary the earlier Order and provided no basis to depart from it.

Eamon J. held that the additional grounds were not properly before it and confined the Appeal to the grounds expressly set out in the Amended Originating Application. The Court emphasized the importance of certainty, finality, and procedural fairness in Arbitration Appeals, particularly where a prior gatekeeping Order had limited the issues. The Appeal was dismissed.