UBAH v THE ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS OF ALBERTA APPEAL BOARD, 2025 ABCA 81

ANTONIO JA

14.36: Case management officers
14.5: Appeals only with permission

Case Summary

The Applicant was found to have engaged in professional misconduct by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (“APEGA) Disciplinary Committee. He appealed the decision to the APEGA Appeal Board (the “Board), but the appeal was dismissed. The Applicant then sought to appeal the Board’s orders and applied to rescind the Case Management Officer’s direction requiring him to seek permission to appeal orders from the Board. Alternatively, the Applicant sought permission to appeal if leave was required.

The Applicant argued that he should not have been required to seek leave under Rule 14.5(1)(j), which applies when a prospective appellant “has been declared a vexatious litigant in the court appealed from”. In this case, the “court appealed from” was the Board. Antonio J.A. rejected this argument, confirming that the vexatious litigant Order expressly mandated permission before any appeal could proceed. The Court deemed the Applicant’s challenge to the Order’s applicability a collateral attack on previous rulings and refused to entertain it.

The Applicant also contested a scheduling direction requiring both of his Applications to be heard together. However, the Court upheld the Case Management Officer’s authority under Rule 14.36(1) to manage case scheduling. It found that the Applicant had ample notice and dismissed his claim of inadequate preparation time.

In assessing the request for permission to appeal, Antonio J.A. applied the test from Christofi v Jeffrey V Kahane Professional Corporation, 2022 ABCA 284. The test requires consideration of whether the appeal raises an important question of law or precedent, has a reasonable chance of success, or would be unduly hindered by delay. Antonio J.A. concluded that the Applicant’s arguments merely raised factual disputes already resolved by the Board, lacked legal significance, and had no reasonable prospect of success. Finding no procedural unfairness, the Court denied permission to appeal and upheld the Case Management Officer’s direction.

View CanLII Details