TUPECHKA v TUPECHKA

The Applicant sought permission to appeal the refusal to have their matter heard as an urgent Application. The Applicant twice sought to have its contempt application heard on an urgent basis, and both requests were refused.

Upon the first request for the matter to be heard urgently, the Court advised the Applicant that the appropriate forum would be to follow the Court’s newly implemented “Family Focused Protocol”. The Applicant then made a second request for the matter to be heard urgently, and was once again denied. The Respondent also noted that they intended to apply for relocation and primary parenting. The Applicant then sought permission to appeal the Court’s refusal to hear the matter urgently on the basis that their matter involved parenting issues that could not be reasonably delayed.

Fagnan J.A. noted that in considering whether to grant an application for permission to appeal, the Court must consider whether there is a reasonable chance of success in the appeal. In the present case, the Applicant would have to show that the Court had erred in its assessment that an Application for contempt and an anticipated Cross-Application for relocation was not appropriate for a 20-minute hearing in Chambers. Appeal Justice Fagnan was of the view that there was no possibility that the Appeal could be successful.

Further, the Court noted there would be no benefit to be gained by an Appeal in this case in terms of advancing the matter. Proceeding by way of Appeal rather than through the Family Focused Protocol would only have the effect of further delaying the matter. All factors militated against the granting of permission. The Application for permission to appeal was dismissed.