On August 17, 2026, in the matter against Defendant/Respondent Dr. Peter Whidden, the Plaintiff/Appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal regarding Justice Nicholas Devlin's unfair treatment of her appeal from Applications Judge Lori Mattis' egregious New Judgment Orders. The grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal include errors of law, procedural unfairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, and failure to independently adjudicate material issues raised in the appeal.
Below is the Notice of Appeal of the Appellant submitted to the Court of Appeal, containing some of the issues that will be argued on appeal. The Plaintiff's appeal factum with the entirety of appeal issues will be posted when it is available.
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
The Appellant appeals from the Order of Justice Nicholas E. Devlin dismissing the Appellant’s appeals from the unfair New Judgment Order and related Costs Order of Applications Judge Lori Mattis. The Order should be set aside because the appeal was not determined through the independent, impartial and procedurally fair merits review required on an appeal from an Applications Judge, and because Justice Devlin committed errors of law, principle and fact in dismissing the appeal.
Justice Devlin erred by permitting the prior interlocutory stay proceedings before Justice Craig Jones to determine his disposition of the Appellant’s first merits appeal from Applications Judge Mattis. The Appellant’s Rule 6.14 appeal was filed before the stay application and was the proceeding in which the merits of Applications Judge Mattis New Judgment and Costs Orders were required to be independently determined. Rule 6.14 provides a de novo separate appeal from an Applications Judge to a Justice, and the governing standard is correctness.
The conduct of the hearing, considered cumulatively, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that the merits had been prejudged and denied the Appellant a fair and independent appeal.
The reasonable apprehension and procedural fairness concerns were further compounded when Justice Devlin attempted to persuade the Appellant to not proceed with her intended application to the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the separate Justice Jones/stay proceeding. The Appellant fully intends to proceed with that Supreme Court of Canada matter.
Justice Devlin repeatedly interrupted and curtailed the Appellant’s oral submissions, including on issues that had never previously received a merits adjudication.
Justice Devlin erred by treating the Appellant’s specific evidence and arguments concerning duplicated, nonexistent and otherwise unauthorized components of the historical bill of costs as having already been adjudicated and therefore incapable of consideration.
Justice Devlin erred in his interpretation and application of ss. 10 and 11 of the Alberta Limitations Act. Section 10 expressly preserves the Court’s authority to grant immunity under the equitable doctrines of acquiescence and laches, while s. 11 governs claims based upon judgments or orders for payment of money and imposes the ten-year limitation governing such claims.
With respect to s. 10, Justice Devlin mischaracterized the Appellant’s case. The Appellant’s actual submission was that the particular circumstances, including the substantial payment and agreement, approximately a decade without further contact, the respondents’ deliberate decision to take no further enforcement steps while interest continued to accrue, resulting prejudice, and the parties’ subsequent conduct, required determination under the equitable doctrines expressly preserved by s. 10. Opposing counsel, Jessie Larter, stated on the record before Applications Judge Mattis that the Respondents were “sitting back” and not pursuing in attempt to accrue interest from which they could profit.
Justice Devlin further erred in his treatment of s. 11 and the procedural requirements governing the respondents’ New Judgment application.
Justice Devlin stated that he was going to order enhanced costs despite that the parties had not even made their oral submissions yet, raising reasonable apprehension of bias.
Further issues shall be argued on appeal.
The Appellant’s materials shall be distributed to federal and provincial offices in the interest of transparency due to this Court of Appeal’s ongoing pattern of failure to reference the actual issues raised.
