WAYMARKER MANAGEMENT (SILVER CREEK) INC v TIBU, 2015 ABCA 140
14.5: Appeals only with permission
The Applicant and the Respondents had competing Claims against each other. The Claims were scheduled to be resolved at Trial in the Court of Queen’s Bench. The Applicant did not attend the Trial, and the Respondents obtained a Judgment in her absence. The Judgment consisted of damages and a Restraining Order against the Applicant in addition to dismissal of the Applicant’s claims. The Applicant subsequently applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench for reconsideration of the earlier Judgment against her, submitting that she was not able to attend Trial for medical reasons. The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed that Application, and ordered Costs against the Applicant.
The Applicant sought permission to appeal all aspects of the Queen’s Bench Decisions against her. Justice O’Ferrall stated that the only aspect of the Applicant’s Appeal that required leave under Rule 14.5 was the award of damages against the Applicant and the dismissal of her Claim for damages, both of which had values under $25,000. Justice O’Ferrall held that nothing in either Appeal involved “a matter of law of sufficient importance to the legal system or the public to justify granting permission to appeals.” The Appeal relating to the Restraining Order was not a matter that required permission under Rule 14.5. Similarly, with reference to Rule 14.5(1)(e), the Appeal relating to Costs was related to substantive Decisions that were also being appealed. Therefore, it did not constitute an Appeal of “costs alone,” and did not require permission of the Court to be appealed.
O’Ferrall J.A. declined to grant permission for the Applicant to appeal the portion of the Decisions on damages. The Applicant was allowed to appeal the rest of the Decisions. The parties agreed, and the Court ordered, that if any of the matters went to an Appeal, the Appeals should be consolidated.View CanLII Details