Following a two-day Streamlined family law Trial, the father appealed a decision of the Court of King’s Bench which suspended enforcement of two previous Cost Orders against the Respondent mother. The dispute at arose from a proceeding involving the custody of a shared child following a 2018 divorce Judgment. The child was apprehended by Child and Family Services in Calgary following the father’s arrest in October 2024.

In December 2024, the mother applied to obtain a Parenting Order for the child. The Trial Judge found that adequate notice was not given to the father. However, the Trial Judge made two interim rulings suspending the Costs Orders against the mother.

On Appeal, the father argued that it was procedurally unfair and legally incorrect for the Trial Judge to suspend the two Orders on his own motion, without allowing submissions from the parties. The father also sought to adduce new evidence concerning his judicial interim release and the mother’s failure to pursue a jurisdictional ruling.

The Appeal Panel observed that the process was procedurally irregular, as the relief had not been formally requested, and the father was not afforded an opportunity to respond. However, the Panel found no resulting prejudice, as the substance of the mother’s Application was faffirmed. The Court reaffirmed that, pursuant to Rule 14.75(2), an Appeal may properly be dismissed despite an error of law or procedure where no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed both the Appeal and the Appellant’s Application to adduce fresh evidence, applying Rule 14.75(2) to uphold the decision despite procedural irregularities, and finding that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had occurred.