The Applicant asked the Court to evaluate whether an Amended Originating Application submitted under the “SafeRoads Alberta Accelerated Review Procedure” (“SAARP”) should be approved for filing or rejected as abuse of process, pursuant to Rule 3.68.

The Amended Originating Application expanded on allegations included in the original Originating Application by explaining the factual basis for previously bald allegations. The Respondent Director of SafeRoads opposed the Amended Originating Application on the basis that many of the additions amounted to evidence or argument, rather than facts, as required pursuant to Rule 13.6(2)(a).

Upon review, the Court ordered that the Amended Originating Application be submitted for filing subject to specific revisions. In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that the line between facts and evidence can be difficult to draw and any blurring of that line in the Amended Originating Application did not cause injury to the Respondent. Moreover, in light of Rule 1.2, the Court found that the Amended Originating Application fulfilled the primary requirement of alerting the opposing party of the case to be met and should not be refused on technical grounds. Finally, the Court ordered that the Amended Originating Application be filed within 14 days from the date of the Decision, failing which the Application would be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68.