Two Applicants, a Municipal District (the “MD”) and a Landowners Group (the “LG”), applied for permission to be named as Respondents, or alternatively to intervene, in three Permission to Appeal Applications.

Justice Pentelechuk noted that the Court’s authority to add parties to an Appeal arises from two sources: (1) Rule 14.57, which permits the Court to add parties to an Appeal in accordance with Rule 3.74, where the Court is satisfied that the Order should be made; and (2) the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to do so in the interests of justice.

Justice Pentelechuk stated the test for party status in an Appeal as follows: (1) an Applicant must show it has a legal interest in the outcome; (2) it must be just and convenient to add the Applicant; and (3) the Applicant’s interest can be adequately protected if it is granted party status.

The Court found that the MD satisfied all elements of this test and granted its Application to be named as a Respondent to one of the three Permission to Appeal Applications.

The Court found that the LG had not articulated a legal interest aside from the fact that it was granted status below, before the Alberta Energy Regulator Joint Review Panel (the “JRP”). Justice Pentelechuk noted that the JRP had broad discretion to grant standing, and that significant emphasis could not be placed on such standing in this Application, which demanded a stricter analysis.

The Court then considered the LG’s alternative Application to be named as an Intervenor. Justice Pentelechuk stated that an Applicant for Intervenor status must show that it will be directly and significantly affected by the outcome and that it will provide some expertise or fresh perspective that will be helpful. The Court held that the LG’s perspective was not unique from that of the MD and therefore dismissed the Application.