Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The application by Tadeusz Sejnowski to rescind the Case Management Officer’s administrative direction was dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds.

• Under r 14.36(3), the one-month deadline to challenge a Case Management Officer’s administrative decision was missed, and no application to extend time was brought, leaving the Court without authority or jurisdiction to hear the application.

• The Arbitration Act, including s 44(2) and the definition of “court” in s 1(c)(ii), confines applications for permission to appeal arbitration awards on questions of law to the Court of King’s Bench, with no statutory right to appeal an arbitration award directly to the Court of Appeal.

• Consistent with prior decisions (Sherwin-Williams Company v Walls Alive (Edmonton) Ltd, 719491 Alberta Inc v Canada Life Assurance Company, and Schafer v Schafer), the Court reaffirmed that a denial of permission to appeal an arbitration award under s 44(2) is final and cannot be appealed to the Court of Appeal under s 48.

• The Case Management Officer acted within the broad powers granted by s 14(2) of the Court of Appeal Act and r 14.36(1), correctly advised that the Court had no jurisdiction, and provided a fair and reasonable option to discontinue the appeal without additional expense.

• The Court ordered that the application be dismissed and stated that Mr Sejnowski’s $600 filing fee would be repaid if he files a discontinuance of the appeal by January 30, 2026; otherwise, the fee will not be repaid and the appeal will eventually be struck.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

  ---

Background and facts of the dispute

Tadeusz Sejnowski is a member of the Polish Canadian Society. The Polish Canadian Society, the Polish Veterans Society, and the Polish Combatants’ Association in Canada Inc, Edmonton, Branch No 6, own and operate the Polish Hall through a joint venture agreement. Mr Sejnowski commenced an action against the Polish Hall and the Polish Canadian Society, alleging shortfalls related to governance and financial reporting requirements. The action was stayed pursuant to the Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c-4, because the joint venture agreement contained a mandatory arbitration provision, as noted in Sejnowski v Polish Hall, 2025 ABKB 419, at paragraphs 1-3. Following the stay, the parties entered into an arbitration agreement dated February 14, 2024 and proceeded with arbitration. An arbitration award was released on July 26, 2024. Mr Sejnowski then sought leave to appeal the arbitration award to the Court of King’s Bench under s 44 of the Arbitration Act, which requires a party to obtain permission to appeal an arbitration award on a question of law. The chambers judge declined to grant permission to appeal on any of the proposed grounds. On August 11, 2025, Mr Sejnowski submitted a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. On that same day, a Case Management Officer advised him that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that his only option was to discontinue it. She directed him to the discontinuance of appeal template on the Court’s website and informed him she would ask Registry to refund the filing fee for the notice of appeal if he submitted the discontinuance by August 15, 2025. He did not do so. Instead, he brought the present application to rescind the Case Management Officer’s administrative direction on December 11, 2025.

Procedural timeline and limits on rescission applications

The Court considered the procedural framework governing challenges to administrative directions of Case Management Officers. Section 14(2) of the Court of Appeal Act, RSA 2000, c C-30, and r 14.36 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, confer broad powers on Case Management Officers to manage matters and business before the Court of Appeal. Rule 14.36(3) provides that any person affected by an administrative direction of a Case Management Officer may apply to a judge of the Court of Appeal within one month of the date of the administrative decision to have the direction rescinded, confirmed, amended, or enforced. The administrative direction at issue was given on August 11, 2025. Therefore, any application to rescind it had to be brought on or before September 11, 2025. The application was filed on December 11, 2025, which placed it outside the one-month timeframe. The Court noted that there was no persuasive explanation for why the application was not brought for a further three months, and that there was no application to extend the time to bring the rescission application. As a result, the Court concluded that it had no authority or jurisdiction to hear the application, and the determination of the Case Management Officer remained as directed.

Standard of review of the Case Management Officer’s direction

Although the Court held that the application was out of time and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear it, the Court chose to address the application on its merits to forestall the matter from being returned to the Court on a subsequent application to extend time and then an application to rescind the direction. In doing so, the Court described the approach that would be taken if the application had been brought on time and was properly before it. In such a case, the presiding judge would consider the question determined by the Case Management Officer directly and make an independent decision, as set out in cases such as Kainaiwa/Blood Tribe v Alberta (Minister of Energy), 2020 ABCA 387, Bruneau v Quinn, 2024 ABCA 108, and Ubah v The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta Appeal Board, 2025 ABCA 81. A reviewing justice is to carefully consider the direction and the reasons for the direction, but the direction is not owed deference in the traditional sense, consistent with Tallcree First Nation v Rath & Company and Rath, 2021 ABCA 360, and Ubah.

Statutory framework for appeals from arbitration awards

On the merits, the Court examined Mr Sejnowski’s argument that the Case Management Officer exceeded her jurisdiction and deprived him of procedural fairness. He claimed he was denied his statutory right, under s 44(2) of the Arbitration Act, to appeal the chambers judge’s decision dismissing his application for permission to appeal the arbitration award. The Court reviewed the statutory framework. Section 44(2) of the Arbitration Act allows a party to apply for permission to appeal on a question of law regarding an arbitration award to the “court.” Section 1(c)(ii) of the Arbitration Act defines “court” as the Court of King’s Bench. The reasons state that there is no statutory right to appeal an arbitration award to the Court of Appeal. Section 48 of the Arbitration Act contemplates a further appeal to the Court of Appeal of a decision of a Court of King’s Bench judge made pursuant to s 44. However, the Court of Appeal has consistently held that the denial of permission to appeal an arbitration award under s 44(2) is final and not a decision that can be appealed to the Court of Appeal under s 48. The Court cited Sherwin-Williams Company v Walls Alive (Edmonton) Ltd, 2003 ABCA 191, 719491 Alberta Inc v Canada Life Assurance Company, 2021 ABCA 419, and Schafer v Schafer, 2022 ABCA 358, all of which support the conclusion that the Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal of a refusal to grant permission to appeal an arbitrator’s award under s 44(2).

Assessment of the Case Management Officer’s authority and procedural fairness

The Court concluded that the Case Management Officer did not exceed the jurisdiction granted by s 14 of the Court of Appeal Act and r 14.36(1) of the Rules. The reasons state that she was correct to inform Mr Sejnowski of case law that was fatal to his appeal and that the Court, considering the issue independently, reached the same conclusion on jurisdiction. The Court also found that the Case Management Officer did not breach procedural fairness in her communication to Mr Sejnowski. Instead, she provided a fair and reasonable option for him to discontinue the appeal without incurring additional expense. Her advice that the Court had no jurisdiction, her direction to use the discontinuance of appeal template, and her indication that she would ask Registry to refund the filing fee if discontinuance was filed by a specific date were all set out in the reasons as part of that fair and reasonable option.

Ruling, outcome, and financial consequences

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the application to rescind the Case Management Officer’s direction for both procedural and substantive reasons. The Court stated that if Mr Sejnowski follows the direction of the Case Management Officer and discontinues the appeal by January 30, 2026, his $600 filing fee will be repaid to him. If he does not file a discontinuance on or before that date, the filing fee will not be repaid, and his appeal will eventually be struck. Rule 9.4(2) was invoked, with the Court indicating that it would prepare the resulting order. The application was heard on January 15, 2026, and the reasons were filed at Edmonton, Alberta, on January 16, 2026. The appearances recorded were the applicant, T. Sejnowski, and A. Nanda for the respondent.