Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicant sought leave to appeal a procedural order that merely scheduled a future hearing on substantive matters.

• The chambers order directed the parties to schedule a half-day special application to address issues under section 67 of the Condominium Property Act.

• Questions to be determined included whether the condominium corporation acted improperly, and if so, what relief was warranted.

• Additional issues concerned whether claims against Series Management Inc. and Gerald Simpson could be addressed within the same action.

• During submissions, the applicant conceded the order did not resolve any substantive issues and withdrew the appeal application.

• Despite the withdrawal, the court awarded the respondent condominium corporation costs for preparation and attendance.

Background of the dispute

Hooshang Shakeri applied for permission to appeal a procedural order stemming from chambers proceedings in a dispute with Condo Corporation Plan No. 0524360, its management company Series Management Inc., and an individual, Gerald Simpson. The underlying dispute involves Shakeri’s allegations under section 67 of the Condominium Property Act that the condo corporation acted improperly, and related claims against the management company and Mr. Simpson.

The chambers order

The chambers judge issued an order that did not address the merits of the case but instead directed that a half-day special application be scheduled. The intent was to allow sufficient time to address three central issues:

• Whether the condominium corporation acted improperly under section 67 of the Condominium Property Act and what relief, if any, Mr. Shakeri is entitled to;

• Whether the action against Series Management Inc. can be resolved within the same proceeding and what relief may be available;

• Whether the allegations against Gerald Simpson are properly included in this action and, if so, what remedy may be granted.

The order was classified as a pre-trial procedural decision relating to scheduling and time limits, requiring permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(b) of the Alberta Rules of Court.

Appeal proceedings and concession

At the Alberta Court of Appeal, during oral argument, Mr. Shakeri acknowledged that the challenged order did not decide any substantive issues. It merely organized the procedural path for addressing those issues. Upon that realization, he abandoned the application for permission to appeal.

Costs awarded to respondents

Although the application was withdrawn, the respondent Condominium Corporation had already incurred costs in preparing for and attending the hearing. The Court awarded costs of $2,360 plus GST of $118 under item 22 of Column 3 of Schedule C. Rule 9.4(2)(c) was invoked to have the Court prepare the resulting order. The reasons for decision were filed on April 17, 2025, by Justice Frans Slatter at the Alberta Court of Appeal in Edmonton.

Summary

The case emphasizes the distinction between procedural orders and substantive determinations in appellate practice. Since the chambers order did not affect any rights or determine issues on the merits, it was not appealable without leave, which the applicant ultimately did not pursue. The outcome reinforces the principle that parties must clearly understand the nature of the orders they challenge and the procedural rules governing appellate jurisdiction.