The Appellant, Mark Dorin, was granted permission to appeal a matter arising from the interpretation of section 4(2) of the Edmonton Restricted Development Area Regulations, A/R 287/1974 (the “Regulations”), that provide that no government agency shall, without written consent of the Minister of Infrastructure (the “Minister”), approve any activity that causes surface disturbance of any land in the area. In this case, the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) had concluded that it had jurisdiction to conditionally approve EPCOR’s application so long as EPCOR provided to it written consent from the Minister. The Appellant argued that a proper interpretation of the Regulations meant that until ministerial consent is obtained, the Commission cannot exercise any statutory power.

The Court of Appeal declined to interpret section 4(2) of the Regulations, stating that the issue between the parties was now moot and that if the Court was to interpret that legislation, the Minister should have received notice.

Ultimately the Court of Appeal concluded that even if an error of law occurred in the Commission’s order that approved EPCOR’s activity in question, the Court of Appeal was satisfied, pursuant to Rule 14.75(2), that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had occurred, and no significant prejudice had been experienced by any party, and that therefore the Court of Appeal could dismiss the Appeal.

In dissent, O’Ferrall J.A. chose to interpret section 4(2) of the Regulations and to conduct an analysis, but in the result, O’Ferrall J.A. also applied Rule 14.75(2) and determined that the Court of Appeal could indeed dismiss the Appeal as no significant prejudice had been experienced by any party and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had resulted.