On June 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an Appeal of Justice Craig Jones’ unfair decision denying a stay pending appeal of the unfair new judgment order made by Applications Judge Lori Mattis.
The Appeal addresses Justice Jones' serious errors in applying the test for a stay, in addition to failing to properly adjudicate the misconduct by Gowlings defence lawyer Jessie Larter, representing the defendant/respondent Dr. Peter Whidden.
Below is the Notice of Appeal filed by the Plaintiff.
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
The Plaintiff/Appellant appeals from the decision of Justice Craig Jones on the basis of errors made in law and fact in denying the Appellant a stay pending appeal of the unfair new judgment Orders of Applications Judge Lori Mattis. Justice Jones further erred in denying the Appellant her application for punitive costs against counsel for the Respondents/Defendants Megan McMahon and Jessie Larter for their contemptuous conduct in implementing effects of the Judge Mattis Orders despite the Appellant's stay application in progress to stay any consequences of the Orders, and another Justice's procedural Order in place for the stay application. In addition, Justice Jones erred in failing to require counsel for the Defendants to reverse their implementation of the Mattis Orders which circumvented the stay application and caused evidenced harm to the Appellant.
Among numerous other errors, Justice Jones failed to properly apply the tripartite test for a stay. This includes that despite acknowledging that the serious issues element of the test has a low threshold which is met when the appeal is not frivolous or vexatious, which he acknowledged the appeal was not, he nevertheless proceeded to erroneously conduct an in-depth examination of the merits of the appeal. This is contrary to the tripartite test confirmed by this Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada: Denis v Sauvageau, 2022 ABCA 166 at para. 18: "The test for determining whether there is a serious question to be determined on appeal is whether the appeal is arguable. This is a low threshold which is met if the appeal is not frivolous or vexatious: RJR-MacDonald at pp 335, 337; Polansky Electronics Ltd v AGT Limited, 2000 ABCA 46 at para 11. It is unnecessary for the court to conduct an in-depth examination of the merits of the appeal at the interlocutory stage and it is normally undesirable to do so: RJR MacDonald at pp 337-338."
In addition, Justice Jones erred in determination of the irreparable harm element of the tripartite test. Justice Jones ignored that the Respondents and their counsel caused harm to the Appellant by falsely reporting a judgment to the credit bureau and then in egregious and contemptuous circumvention of the stay application that was in progress (stay application filed on February 25, 2025; amended stay application filed on March 21, 2025; Justice Kendell's Order made on March 26, 2025 directing the stay application to an extended hearing), they implemented additional effects from the Mattis Orders. These facts and the Appellant's May 22, 2025 Affidavit evidence, and complete absence of any evidence from the Respondents, in addition to the other issues pertaining to irreparable harm raised by the Appellant, more than satisfies the irreparable harm element of the test.
Justice Jones further erred in failing to properly apply the element of irreparable harm by suggesting, based on opposing counsel's submissions, that a stay can only be made after irreparable harm has been caused. The law is clear that the element of irreparable harm is whether there could be irreparable harm as a result of not granting the stay, not if the harm has already happened. "[T]he analysis of irreparable harm is prospective: to stop harm that will occur if a stay is not granted.": 2022 ABCA 166 at para. 29. And indeed, the irreparable harm has been done. In addition, he egregiously and reprehensibly condoned reporting of a judgment to the credit bureau when there was no judgment. The fact that the Respondents somehow knew the amount to the dollar of the new judgment before Applications Judge Mattis made the judgment raises further serious issues.
Justice Jones erred in stating that the balance of convenience favours the Respondents because they have counsel. This is absolutely absurd and undermines the significant access to justice challenges faced by self-represented persons face. Further, it is well-known that the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) funds physicians' litigation, which they have done in this case and in the more than a dozen other cases in which the Respondent Dr. Whidden was sued for medical negligence.
It is clear that Justice Jones was determined to make a decision that blatantly disregarded the law and the Appellant's rights in order to help the Respondents and their counsel.
Further issues shall be argued in the within Appeal.
