Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ms. Kong's appeal of the May 21, 2025 chambers order was filed late, requiring an application to extend time under the Cairns factors, which the Court granted in part for the 2301 and 2401 Actions only.

• Procedural fairness concerns arose from the hearing of four applications simultaneously without clear notice, and the interpreter's failure to translate opposing counsel's submissions and the oral decision.

• The Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias despite Ms. Kong's allegations, as adverse rulings and time limitations do not establish bias.

• An appeal from the November 7, 2024 stay refusal was jurisdictionally barred because one King's Bench justice cannot hear an appeal from another King's Bench justice's order.

• Ms. Kong's application to have the Court appoint legal counsel was denied, as the jurisdiction to do so is exercised sparingly and typically confined to criminal or child custody matters.

• Permission to appeal the October 6, 2025 correction decision to a panel was dismissed, with the Court finding no error of law, misapprehension of facts, or unreasonable exercise of discretion.

Background of the dispute

The litigation between Zhao Xia Kong and Condominium Corporation No. 0313339 originated from a disagreement over responsibility for a $552 toilet repair invoice issued in 2018. Over time, however, the dispute escalated significantly, spawning multiple court actions across three different actions in the Court of King's Bench of Alberta (Actions 1901-13575, 2301-02695, and 2401-15144) and eventually reaching the Court of Appeal of Alberta. Ms. Kong, a self-represented Mandarin-speaking litigant, faced language barriers throughout the proceedings and relied on interpreter assistance to participate in court hearings.

The May 21, 2025 chambers order

On May 21, 2025, a chambers judge heard four distinct applications arising from the three different actions all at once, consolidating the results into a single order. The order dismissed Ms. Kong's application to appeal a November 7, 2024 decision refusing a stay in the 1901 Action; granted her request to file an additional brief but denied her application to cross-examine on an affidavit; struck out the appeal she had filed in the 2301 Action; and struck out her claim in the 2401 Action as an abuse of process on the basis that it was duplicative of previous litigation. The order also required that Ms. Kong take certain steps before filing specific types of documents in the Court of King's Bench and awarded costs to the respondent on solicitor-and-client and enhanced bases.

The application to appoint counsel (2025 ABCA 273)

On July 11, 2025, Ms. Kong applied to the Court of Appeal to have legal counsel appointed to assist her with the appeal. She cited health challenges, the fact that English is not her first language, and her inability to secure legal aid or private representation. Justice Grosse acknowledged these difficulties and accepted that the case was subjectively very important to Ms. Kong. However, the Court noted that its jurisdiction to appoint counsel is "very limited" and "exercised sparingly," typically confined to criminal matters where the liberty of an individual is at stake or in family law matters where the custody of children is involved. The Court found that the issues were very fact-specific with a significant procedural component and that the original underlying dispute was over a relatively small amount of money. Noting that Ms. Kong was very familiar with the history of all of the actions and proceedings and that there was no serious risk of unfairness if she did not have counsel, the application was dismissed on August 7, 2025. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Procedural fairness and interpretation issues at the May 21 hearing

A central theme running through Ms. Kong's appeals was her claim that the May 21 hearing was procedurally unfair. She had expected the four applications to be heard sequentially, as she was told by at least one judge that the four applications would be heard using four spots on the chambers list totaling 80 minutes. Instead, all four matters proceeded together. Ms. Kong made her initial submissions on her application in the 1901 Action for an extension of time to file a brief and to cross-examine on an affidavit. When opposing counsel began outlining all the applications before the court, she interjected, indicating that she wanted to proceed one by one. The chambers judge stated that he would hear from opposing counsel and Ms. Kong would have a chance to speak again when counsel had concluded. She was given the opportunity to make lengthy reply submissions, but she ultimately did not end up making submissions in response to the application to strike the 2401 Action before the chambers judge concluded the proceedings. Additionally, Ms. Kong's interpreter did not interpret opposing counsel's submissions or the oral decision of the chambers judge, which referred to legal concepts such as res judicata. Ms. Kong did not raise a concern about a lack of interpretation until after the decision was rendered.

The application to extend time (2026 ABCA 3)

Ms. Kong filed her notice of appeal on June 30, 2025, within ten days after the deadline. She applied to extend time on July 17, 2025. Justice Grosse analyzed the application under the four-part Cairns test. The first three factors — whether there was a bona fide intention to appeal, any explanation for the delay and whether the other side was prejudiced, and whether the appellant had taken the benefits of the judgment — were satisfied for all four parts of the May 21 order. Ms. Kong had taken steps to obtain the hearing transcript within the appeal period, received it on June 19, and reasonably needed time to translate and digest the transcript. The delay of approximately ten days caused no serious prejudice to the respondent.

The fourth Cairns factor: reasonable chance of success

The determinative issue was whether each part of the proposed appeal had a reasonable chance of success. For the 1901 Action's dismissal of the appeal of the November 7 stay refusal, the Court found no prospect of success because, as a matter of law, it was not open to Ms. Kong to appeal a November 7, 2024 order issued by one justice of the Court of King's Bench to another justice of the Court of King's Bench. For the 1901 Action's dismissal of the cross-examination application, the appeal also lacked merit because the decision was highly discretionary and Ms. Kong had not raised any error of principle. However, for the 2301 Action, the Court found arguable issues: the chambers judge had accepted that Ms. Kong withdrew the 2301 Appeal and took it off the list, yet still struck it and awarded enhanced costs. It was arguable that there was no basis on which to strike the 2301 Appeal, except perhaps as a formality, and no basis to award enhanced costs or any other relief against Ms. Kong arising from the 2301 Appeal. For the 2401 Action, the appeal also had a reasonable chance of success because the chambers judge did not account for Ms. Kong's Amended Statement of Claim, which included allegations of legal wrongdoing at the annual general meeting of the respondent condominium corporation that took place on April 22, 2025. Those specific allegations could not have been covered in the 1901 Action or the 2301 Action, both of which were struck long before April 22, 2025. The procedural fairness argument also had more merit in the context of the 2401 Action, as Ms. Kong did not end up making submissions in response to the application to strike the 2401 Action before the chambers judge concluded the proceedings.

The permission to appeal application (2026 ABCA 90)

Following the denial of appointed counsel, Ms. Kong sought corrections to "certain factual and contextual elements" in the August 7, 2025 decision, which were addressed and denied in an October 6, 2025 decision communicated by letter of the Case Management Officer. She then filed an application on November 5, 2025 for permission to appeal that October 6 decision to a panel. Justice Grosse dismissed the application on March 20, 2026, finding that the applicant had not identified an issue or possible error that warrants review by a panel. The Court noted that Ms. Kong's own correspondence included the subject line referencing Rule 9.12, and even if Rule 9.13 were applied instead, it could not apply because the order arising out of the August 7 decision had been entered before the applicant's correspondence requesting correction was filed. The Court also rejected the complaint about costs, observing that a party cannot insulate themselves from a costs award by seeking specific relief pursuant to the Rules of Court by letter, and then, when unsuccessful, argue that the court improperly treated the letter as a formal application.

Ruling and outcome

Across all three decisions, the Court of Appeal achieved a mixed result. The extension of time to appeal was granted for the 2301 and 2401 Actions, permitting Ms. Kong to proceed with appeals concerning the striking of the 2301 Appeal and the associated award of enhanced costs and imposition of filing restrictions, as well as the striking of the 2401 Action. The extension was denied for the 1901 Action matters. The application to appoint counsel and the application for permission to appeal the correction decision were both dismissed. No permission to appeal was required for the appeals where time was extended, and those appeals may proceed without permission. In each of the three decisions, given the mixed success or particular circumstances, each party was ordered to bear their own costs. No exact monetary award was determined in favor of either party in these appellate decisions; the underlying chambers order had awarded costs to the respondent on a solicitor-and-client basis and on an enhanced basis, but the precise quantum of those costs was not specified in the decisions under review.