The Applicant sought a permit from the Development Office of St. Albert, which was denied. The Applicant then appealed that decision to the Respondent Board (the “Board”), who dismissed the appeal (the “Decision”). The Applicant then applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the Decision (the “Application”), and for an extension of time to make the Application, as it was not served on the Respondents within 30 days, as required by the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 (the “Related Application”).

Watson J.A. dismissed both the Application and the Related Application. In so doing, Justice Watson noted procedural irregularities in the Applications. Specifically, there was a defective style of cause in the Application notices, as neither identified the Respondents properly, and the defects could reflect a misunderstanding of the process and requirement for service under Rule 14.81.

The Court continued by noting that the bringing of Applications on behalf of a corporation is expected to be through legal counsel under the Legal Profession Act. However, Rule 2.23(4), which allows for Court discretion to permit individuals to “assist” other individuals, has now been interpreted to restore a discretion of the Court to permit an individual to make oral submissions on behalf of a corporation in Court.

The Court emphasised the gatekeeping role of the Court by clarifying that the enactment of Rule 2.23(4) does not mean that non-lawyers have an unlimited right to represent corporations. The presumption is still that corporations must be represented by lawyers. Rule 2.23(4) merely restores the discretion of judges to give a right of audience in court to non-lawyers connected to the corporation.