The Plaintiff started an Action against two entities he alleged were his former employers. One of the Defendants was based in Malaysia (“Petronas Malaysia”). Petronas Malaysia was served by the Plaintiff with an Order permitting service outside of Canada (the “Service Ex Juris Order”) but refused to defend on the basis that it did not wish to attorn to the jurisdiction of Canadian Courts. The Plaintiff noted Petronas Malaysia in default.

As a result, Petronas Malaysia applied to set the Service Ex Juris Order aside. The Plaintiff opposed the Application and filed an Affidavit. The Plaintiff was cross-examined on the Affidavit and refused to answer eight questions. A Case Management Judge ordered the Plaintiff to answer the questions, and made various procedural directions for the filing of further Applications and appointments for Questioning (the “CM Order”).

The Plaintiff applied for permission to Appeal the CM Order and for a corresponding Stay pending Appeal. The Plaintiff experienced mixed success.

Appeal Justice Slatter found that the Plaintiff was not required to seek permission to Appeal the part of the CM Order that directed him to answer questions refused at cross-examination. However, he was required to obtain permission to Appeal the rest of the CM Order, which was procedural in nature.

Rule 14.5(1)(b) stipulates that an Appellant must obtain permission from the Court of Appeal before appealing pre-Trial decisions related to adjournments, time periods, or time limits. The Rule aims to discourage interlocutory Appeals as they usually cause expense and delay. Rule 14.71 encourages matters to proceed on the merits, with procedural issues to be raised in the Appeal from the ultimate decision. Together, Rules 14.5(1)(b) and 14.71 complement Rule 1.2(1) and aim to resolve claims in a manner that is fair, just, timely, and cost-effective.

Appeal Justice Slatter dismissed the Plaintiff’s Application for permission to Appeal the procedural components of the CM Order. The matters complained of by the Plaintiff were within the discretion of the Case Management Judge. The Case Management Judge had jurisdiction to schedule and sequence any Applications related to issues from the Service Ex Juris Order.

The Plaintiff’s application for a Stay of the CM Order was also dismissed, but partial relief was granted to avoid rendering the Appeal moot. Appeal Justice Slatter directed the Plaintiff to answer the questions and provide them to the Case Management Officer, who would hold the answers until the Appeal would be resolved or abandoned.

A few collateral issues arose from the Plaintiff’s Applications.

First, the CM Order directed the Plaintiff to answer questions within 14 days. Since that deadline had passed, Slatter J.A. relied on Rule 13.5(2) and extended the time the Plaintiff had to provide answers to the Case Management Officer.

Second, if the Plaintiff wanted to proceed with the Appeal of the part of the CM Order that directed him to answer questions, he had to perfect his Appeal under the Rules. Accordingly, a series of deadlines were extended by the Court as they had lapsed.

Rule 14.14(1) categorizes Appeals from parts of a Decision as fast track Appeals. As a result, under Rule 14.15(1), the Plaintiff had 10 days to order the Appeal Record and transcripts from the date of the notice of Appeal. Since that date had already passed, it was extended by 10 days.

Rule 14.16(3) applies to fast track Appeals and directs Appellants to file and serve the Appeal Record and transcripts within one month from the date the Notice of Appeal was filed. Since that date lapsed too, it was extended by one month. 

Lastly, the Plaintiff was directed to comply with Rule 14.24(1). This Rule applies to fast track Appeals and mandates that Appellants file and serve their Factum the earlier of 20 days after the Appeal Record is filed or two months after the Notice of Appeal is filed. Failure to do so will result in the Registrar striking the Appeal.

The Court invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c) and directed the Court Clerk to sign the resulting Order without approval from the Plaintiff.