UBAH v UBAH, 2026 ABCA 301

The Applicant sought permission to appeal a Judgment and Costs Order arising from a family law Streamlined Trial. As the Applicant had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, permission to appeal was required pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(j).

Appeal Justice Kirker confirmed that Rule 14.5 and Section 23.1(7) of the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, governed permission to appeal. The Applicant was required to demonstrate that the proposed Appeal raised an important question of law, had a reasonable prospect of success, and would not cause undue delay or prejudice or constitute an abuse of process.

Kirker J.A. found that the proposed Appeal did not satisfy these requirements. The Applicant challenged the Trial Judge’s findings on the validity of the marriage and contended that the Order directing a Streamlined Trial had discharged the burden of proving its invalidity. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the Order was a procedural measure pursuant to Rule 4.11 which did not determine substantive issues or alter the applicable burden of proof.

The Court also rejected the Applicant’s arguments concerning procedural unfairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, and inadequate reasons. Kirker J.A. determined that the proposed Appeal of the Costs Order had no reasonable prospect of success, given the discretionary nature of Costs Awards and the deferential standard of review.

Thus, allowing the Appeal would constitute an abuse of process. Accordingly, the Application was denied, and Rule 9.4(2)(c) was invoked for the Court to prepare the resulting Order.