The Applicant sought permission to appeal a Costs award granted to the Respondent. Justice Wakeling held that Rule 14.5 governed the granting of such permission. Wakeling J.A. noted that permission to appeal Costs awards should be granted rarely, as the Court of Appeal’s role is to review questions of law, and new questions of law arise infrequently in Costs disputes. Accordingly, to proceed to a full panel hearing, Justice Wakeling maintained that the Applicant must show that the alleged error being appealed is a:

“...question of law, the resolution of which is important to the practice…the applicant has a strong case… and that an appeal will not unduly hinder the progress of the action … or that the costs order is clearly wrong and must, under all the circumstances, be set aside.”

The Applicant failed to meet the requirements of this test. Wakeling J.A. held that the Applicant failed to show that: there was a “sufficiently strong case” and that the award was “erroneous in principle” or “clearly wrong”; and that the issues involved would allow the Court to “provide direction on the law regarding costs”, broadly. Finally, Justice Wakeling maintained that allowing the Appeal to proceed would not be in the best interests of the parties as it would introduce delay and postpone finality between the parties. Accordingly, Wakeling J.A. denied the Application for permission to Appeal the Costs award.