The Alberta Court of Appeal restored an appeal to the scheduling process after a case management officer declined to schedule it because the underlying no contact order had expired. Justice Crighton held that an administrative officer could identify the likelihood of mootness and advise the parties about the consequences, but could not effectively dispose of an appeal by refusing to set it down.
The appeal concerned a no contact order that expired in August 2026. The case management officer had concluded there was little point in scheduling an appeal that might no longer present a live controversy. The Court accepted that conserving judicial resources was a legitimate concern, but distinguished administrative case management from deciding an appeal. Under the Alberta Rules of Court, the officer could schedule the matter or refer the mootness question to a judicial panel. A decision effectively dismissing the appeal belonged to the Court, not the officer.
The applicant also sought to restrict access to evidence filed by the respondents. That request failed. Justice Crighton applied the open court framework from Sherman Estate v Donovan, which requires a serious risk to an important public interest, necessity and proportionality. The applicant had not shown that the evidence created the kind of serious privacy risk that could justify restricting access. Embarrassment or distress alone was insufficient.
The Court therefore rescinded the scheduling direction and returned the appeal to the case management officer, while refusing the restricted access application. It did not decide whether the underlying appeal was moot. That issue remained for a judicial panel if the matter proceeded.
For Binder Law, the decision offers a practical distinction between managing litigation and deciding its merits. Administrative screening can make the process more efficient, but cannot substitute for judicial determination when a rule reserves the decision to a judge or panel. It also reinforces that privacy concerns must meet the demanding open court test rather than rely on a general preference for confidentiality.
The original Court of Appeal reasons were reviewed in full, including paragraphs 1 to 18.