The Applicants, who were the Respondent’s landlords, sought permission to Appeal a Decision from the Court of King’s Bench, an extension of time to file the Appeal, and a Stay of the Order pending Appeal.

In 2023, a dispute arose between the Parties, leading to an application to the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (“RTDRS”). The RTDRS found the Applicants had issued an invalid rent increase notice and ordered them to pay a monetary amount, which included a rent rebate (the “RTDRS Order”). The Applicants appealed the rent rebate portion of the RTDRS Order to the Court of King’s Bench. The Chambers Judge dismissed that appeal, awarding solicitor and own client costs against the Applicants. A Review Officer subsequently assessed and determined costs, and the Applicants’ appeal of that assessment was also dismissed, with further costs awarded to the Respondent.

Antonio J.A. identified the four criteria required to receive an extension of time. First, a genuine intention to appeal while the right to do so existed and a special circumstance excusing the failure to file the appeal. Second, a valid explanation for the delay with no significant prejudice to the respondent. Third, the applicants must not have taken benefits from the Judgment being appealed, and lastly, the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. Antonio J.A. noted that these criteria are weighed together to determine whether granting the extension is in the interests of justice.

Antonio J.A. determined that the Appeal had no reasonable chance of success, as it was filed outside of the requisite 30-day appeal period, which cannot be extended or varied. The Applicants’ argument that they were entitled to one level of appeal, including with respect to costs, was rejected. The notion of an entitlement to one level of appeal is merely an observation, not a rule. The Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006, clearly states that a decision from the Court of King’s Bench is final and not subject to further appeal. Since the issue of costs was part of the decision, it could not be appealed.

Additionally, Antonio J.A. stated that, even if the Application for permission to Appeal had been considered, it would have been denied. Because the Appeal involved costs of less than $25,000, permission to appeal was required pursuant to Rules 14.5(1)(e) and 14.5(1)(g). Appeal Justice Antonio explained that at minimum, the Applicant must show that the appeal had a reasonable chance of success, raised a question of public importance, and had practical utility. The Court held that it would not be in the interests of justice to permit the Appeal, it was hopeless, raised no question of public importance, and was only of interest to the immediate Parties.

Regarding the Stay Application, Antonio J.A. found there was no serious question to be tried. The Applicants did not identify how payment of the costs award would cause irreparable harm not compensable in monetary damages.

As a result, the Court denied the Application for an extension of time, the Application for permission to Appeal, and the Application for a Stay pending Appeal.