This Decision addressed three related Applications. The Applicants sought leave to Appeal several Court Orders that flowed from Applications that declared the Applicants to be vexatious litigants, some of which Orders had subsequently been vacated. Additionally, the Applicants sought an extension of time to appeal, per Rules 14.8 and 14.37, and to stay two Costs Orders, pending Appeal.

In considering the Application to extend time to appeal in respect of two of the Orders, the Court held that, notwithstanding that the reason for the delay was a Court access restriction Order that was subsequently vacated, no extension should be granted, as the Appeals were unmeritorious, and in any event moot following the Orders to vacate.

The Court did, however, grant leave to appeal in respect of the Costs Orders, based on the Applicants’ argument that the Application Justice had misapplied Rules 10.29 and 10.33, and the Court’s conclusion that appellate consideration of the Costs Orders would be of significance to the Applicants and the general public. In granting leave in respect of these Orders, the Court applied the five part test from Brill v Brill, 2017 ABCA 235: (a) the Applicant must identify a good, arguable case having enough merit to warrant scrutiny by the Court; (b) the issues must be important, both to the parties and in general; (c) the Appeal must have some practical utility; and (d) the Court should consider the effect of delay in proceedings caused by the Appeal.

Finally, the Court declined to grant a stay in respect of the Costs Orders, pending Appeal, on the basis that the Applicants would not suffer irreparable harm as a result of the Orders.