In 2021, the Respondent successfully applied for retroactive and ongoing child support against the Applicant. The resulting Order was issued on December 23, 2021 (the “Order”). On December 15, 2023, the Applicant applied to vary to his parenting time, recalculation of his income, and a claim for spousal support, which was ultimately set for December 18, 2024 (“Application”).

The time at the Application was ultimately spent addressing a conflict of interest regarding the Respondent’s counsel and procedural issues arising from a Fiat on April 21, 2022, which permitted the late filing of the Order (the “Fiat Application”). The Applicant argued that the Fiat Application was granted without notice, contrary to Rule 9.5(2), and that he was never served with a copy of the Order. The Application was adjourned, and Costs were awarded against the Applicant (“Scheduling Order”).

The Applicant sought permission to appeal the Scheduling Order. Pentelechuk J.A. noted that permission to appeal was required in the circumstances pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(b). The Court held that while the Applicant should have been provided notice of the Fiat Application and with a copy of the Order, the appeal period starts from the date the Order was made pursuant to Rule 14.8(1). The Court held that there was no prejudice to the Applicant from the granting of the Fiat Application and denied the Application for permission to Appeal. The Court invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c).