{"id":30992,"date":"2025-04-10T11:21:14","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T15:21:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/?p=30992"},"modified":"2025-06-27T17:25:52","modified_gmt":"2025-06-27T21:25:52","slug":"appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/","title":{"rendered":"When will appeal courts intervene in procedural rulings? Lessons from Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney<\/i>, 2025 ABCA 16"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision has reaffirmed a longstanding legal principal: significant deference is owed to discretionary interlocutory decisions, <\/strong>even when the reasoning of the chambers judge may be less than clear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney<\/em>, 2025 ABCA 16, the Court emphasized that unless there is a clear error of law or fact, or the result is patently unjust, appellate intervention will be limited \u2013 especially on procedural matters. This decision underscores the importance of judicial efficiency and deference \u2013 a principle with real implications for litigators navigating procedural disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background and procedural history<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This dispute began in June 2023 when certain employees (the “Departed Employees<\/strong>“) resigned from their positions at Great North Equipment Inc. (“Great North<\/strong>“). Following their resignations, Great North commenced an action alleging that the Departed Employees had breached their fiduciary and contractual obligations by misusing confidential information to assist in launching a competing business venture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In August 2023, the parties consented to a temporary interim injunction (the \u201cInterim<\/strong> Injunction Order<\/strong>\u201d) that imposed several obligations on the Departed Employees:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Surrender of company equipment<\/strong> \u2013 The Departed Employees were to return their work electronic devices for inspection by an independent supervising solicitor.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Confidential information and non-compete<\/strong> \u2013 The Departed Employees were prohibited from using, disclosing, altering, or destroying confidential information. They were also barred from engaging in business activities involving products or systems developed at Great North.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Non-solicitation<\/strong> \u2013 The Departed Employees were restricted from soliciting Great North\u2019s employees, customers, or clients until June 20, 2024, or further order of the court.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    These obligations were later clarified and temporarily extended by subsequent court orders. However, Great North\u2019s application to further extend the injunction\u2014particularly concerning non-solicitation, non-competition, and confidentiality\u2014was ultimately dismissed by Justice M.J. Lema.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The appeal: Great North Equipment v. Penney<\/em>, 2025 ABCA 16<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Great North and a related corporate entity appealed two interlocutory decisions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Justice Dilts\u2019 Decision<\/strong> \u2013 This concerned the interpretation of the forensic protocol order and the appellants’ access to evidence held by the independent supervising solicitor.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Justice Lema\u2019s Decision<\/strong> \u2013 The appellants argued that Justice Lema not only declined to extend certain terms of the Interim Injunction Order, but also effectively rescinded it in its entirety.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      The Court of Appeal upheld both chambers judge\u2019s decisions and reaffirmed the high threshold for appellate intervention in discretionary pre-trial decisions. Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada\u2019s decision in Canada v. Fontaine<\/em>, 2017 SCC 47, the Court noted that intervention is appropriate only where the chambers judge has clearly misdirected themselves on the facts or the law, acted arbitrarily, or rendered a decision so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The Court of Appeal found that both orders were exercises of discretion and neither chambers judge misdirected themselves on facts or law, or reached an arbitrary or unjust conclusion. The Court also emphasized that the decisions related to procedural steps in the litigation and did not make any permanent factual or legal determinations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Notably, the Court acknowledged there was ambiguity in the lower court decisions, particularly in the language used by Justice Lema. Despite this, the Court was not persuaded that the ambiguity rose to the level of reversible error. Rather, it interpreted Justice Lema\u2019s decision as not intending to revoke key portions of the original injunction\u2014specifically, those relating to the use of confidential information and competition. The Court confirmed that these provisions remained in force and amended the formal order accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Similarly, while the issues around document access from the independent supervising solicitor remained unresolved, the Court held that those matters could still be addressed in the trial court or through procedural mechanisms, such as further disclosure applications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Contrast with other recent Court of Appeal decisions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      The Court of Appeal\u2019s restrained approach in Great North<\/em> stands in contrast to the Court\u2019s more interventionist stance in other recent decisions, where legal errors at the chambers level have justified appellate interference; for example, a misapplication of established legal principles, particularly in the context of interim injunctions or interlocutory relief, can cross the line from permissible discretion into reviewable error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Great North<\/em> underscores that appellate review of procedural decisions is guided not by perfection in reasoning, but by whether the decision falls within the range of acceptable outcomes. On the other hand, when a chambers judge fails to properly apply a legal test or engages in flawed reasoning on a key legal issue, the court may show a greater willingness to intervene.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The foregoing reinforces the importance of a clear and principled record at the chambers level. Where the lower court is simply exercising its discretion within a permissible range, appellate review may be limited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Key takeaways<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      1. Deference to discretion<\/strong> \u2013 The Court of Appeal generally defers to discretionary interlocutory rulings, especially those involving procedural steps intended to advance a matter toward trial.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. High<\/strong> threshold for intervention<\/strong> \u2013 The Court of Appeal will only intervene where there is a clear misapplication of the law, factual misdirection, or a decision so flawed that it results in an injustice.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. Procedural<\/strong> orders are not final<\/strong> \u2013 Unless an interlocutory decision purports to finally decide substantive rights, it does not prevent the issues from being raised again at trial.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        Final thoughts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        Great North<\/em> confirms that appellate courts will typically defer to the discretion exercised by the lower court(s) for interlocutory decisions \u2014 provided the lower court\u2019s decision falls within the bounds of fairness and legal accuracy. However, where a discretionary decision reflects a misapplication of established legal principles, or is so clearly wrong that it amounts to an injustice, the Court of Appeal is more likely to intervene.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        If you have any questions about injunctions, interlocutory applications, or appeals, please contact Miller Thomson’s Commercial Litigation team<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        This article was co-authored with a former Associate at Miller Thomson.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n\n\n\n

        [1]<\/a> Great North Equipment Inc v Penney<\/em>, 2024 ABKB 533.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        A recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision has reaffirmed a longstanding legal principal: significant deference is owed to discretionary interlocutory decisions, even when the reasoning of the chambers judge may be less than clear. In Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney, 2025 ABCA 16, the Court emphasized that unless there is a clear error of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":30998,"parent":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[545],"insight-format":[416],"class_list":["post-30992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commercial-litigation"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nWhen will appeal courts intervene in procedural rulings? Lessons from Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney, 2025 ABCA 16 | Miller Thomson<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A decision on court intervention in procedural rulings, a must-read for litigators navigating interim injunctions and interlocutory appeals.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"When will appeal courts intervene in procedural rulings? Lessons from Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney, 2025 ABCA 16 | Miller Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A decision on court intervention in procedural rulings, a must-read for litigators navigating interim injunctions and interlocutory appeals.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Miller Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-04-10T15:21:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-27T21:25:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Katherine Chan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_litigation_boardroom.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@millerthomson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@millerthomson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Katherine Chan\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Katherine Chan\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/5473b50a564d1e37f327fdd79cb348f6\"},\"headline\":\"When will appeal courts intervene in procedural rulings? Lessons from Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney, 2025 ABCA 16\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-04-10T15:21:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-27T21:25:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/\"},\"wordCount\":979,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_litigation_boardroom.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Commercial Litigation\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":[\"WebPage\",\"ItemPage\"],\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/\",\"name\":\"When will appeal courts intervene in procedural rulings? Lessons from Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney, 2025 ABCA 16 | Miller Thomson\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_litigation_boardroom.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-04-10T15:21:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-27T21:25:52+00:00\",\"description\":\"A decision on court intervention in procedural rulings, a must-read for litigators navigating interim injunctions and interlocutory appeals.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_litigation_boardroom.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_litigation_boardroom.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1098,\"caption\":\"group of young business people in boardroom having a meeting with city in the background\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"When will appeal courts intervene in procedural rulings? Lessons from Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney, 2025 ABCA 16\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/\",\"name\":\"Miller Thomson\",\"description\":\"National law firm providing business law expertise and litigation and disputes services for businesses across Canada since 1957.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Miller Thomson\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg\",\"width\":380,\"height\":50,\"caption\":\"Miller Thomson\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/millerthomson\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/miller-thomson-llp\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@millerthomson\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/5473b50a564d1e37f327fdd79cb348f6\",\"name\":\"Katherine Chan\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/da8a18c240b27905220d948a87957ba19ab6de326b44a2ce3072235c121f996f?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/da8a18c240b27905220d948a87957ba19ab6de326b44a2ce3072235c121f996f?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Katherine Chan\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"When will appeal courts intervene in procedural rulings? Lessons from Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney, 2025 ABCA 16 | Miller Thomson","description":"A decision on court intervention in procedural rulings, a must-read for litigators navigating interim injunctions and interlocutory appeals.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"When will appeal courts intervene in procedural rulings? Lessons from Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney, 2025 ABCA 16 | Miller Thomson","og_description":"A decision on court intervention in procedural rulings, a must-read for litigators navigating interim injunctions and interlocutory appeals.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/","og_site_name":"Miller Thomson","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/","article_published_time":"2025-04-10T15:21:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-27T21:25:52+00:00","author":"Katherine Chan","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_image":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_litigation_boardroom.jpg","twitter_creator":"@millerthomson","twitter_site":"@millerthomson","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Katherine Chan","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/"},"author":{"name":"Katherine Chan","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/5473b50a564d1e37f327fdd79cb348f6"},"headline":"When will appeal courts intervene in procedural rulings? Lessons from Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney, 2025 ABCA 16","datePublished":"2025-04-10T15:21:14+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-27T21:25:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/"},"wordCount":979,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_litigation_boardroom.jpg","articleSection":["Commercial Litigation"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":["WebPage","ItemPage"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/","name":"When will appeal courts intervene in procedural rulings? Lessons from Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney, 2025 ABCA 16 | Miller Thomson","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_litigation_boardroom.jpg","datePublished":"2025-04-10T15:21:14+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-27T21:25:52+00:00","description":"A decision on court intervention in procedural rulings, a must-read for litigators navigating interim injunctions and interlocutory appeals.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_litigation_boardroom.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/insights_litigation_boardroom.jpg","width":1920,"height":1098,"caption":"group of young business people in boardroom having a meeting with city in the background"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/appeal-courts-intervene-procedural-rulings-lessons-great-north-equipment-inc-v-penny\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"When will appeal courts intervene in procedural rulings? Lessons from Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney, 2025 ABCA 16"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/","name":"Miller Thomson","description":"National law firm providing business law expertise and litigation and disputes services for businesses across Canada since 1957.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Miller Thomson","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg","width":380,"height":50,"caption":"Miller Thomson"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/","https:\/\/x.com\/millerthomson","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/miller-thomson-llp\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@millerthomson"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/5473b50a564d1e37f327fdd79cb348f6","name":"Katherine Chan","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/da8a18c240b27905220d948a87957ba19ab6de326b44a2ce3072235c121f996f?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/da8a18c240b27905220d948a87957ba19ab6de326b44a2ce3072235c121f996f?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Katherine Chan"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30992","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30992"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30992\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/30998"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30992"},{"taxonomy":"insight-format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight-format?post=30992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}