The University of Calgary (“UofC”) denied a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (“FOIPPA”) request for documents related to two professors, citing section 4(1) of FOIPPA, which excludes teaching materials or employee research information from disclosure. The denial was challenged before the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Commissioner”), whose Adjudicator found that some records were not excluded by section 4(1) and ordered their release (the “Adjudicator’s Decision”). UofC then applied for Judicial Review of the Adjudicator’s Decision, and the Chambers Judge ruled that the Adjudicator’s interpretation and application of FOIPPA was unreasonably narrow and remitted the matter to a different Adjudicator for reconsideration (the “Chambers Decision”).

The Commissioner filed an Appeal of the Chambers Decision. Universities Canada and the Joint Intervenors applied for intervenor status in the Appeal. Appeal Justice Ho confirmed that, pursuant to Rules 14.37(2)(e) and 14.58(1), a single Appeal Judge may grant permission to intervene, subject to any terms and conditions.

Applying the test for intervenor status set out in VLM v Dominey Estate, 2023 ABCA 26, Ho J.A. considered whether the intervenors had a particular interest in the Appeal, would be directly and significantly affected by its outcome, or could provide special expertise, perspective, or information to assist with resolution.

Ho J.A. noted that while a proposed intervenor need not satisfy both branches of the test, meeting only one does not automatically guarantee intervenor status. Ho J.A. considered additional factors, including whether the intervenor was necessary for a proper decision, offered unique expertise, had unprotected interests, or whether their involvement might have caused delay, prejudice, broadened the dispute, or politicized the Court. Pursuant to Rule 14.58(3), intervenors may not raise new issues without the Court’s permission.

The Court found that both Universities Canada and the Joint Intervenors met the first branch of the test, as their members had a specific interest in, or would be significantly affected by, the outcome of the Appeal. Emphasizing that satisfying this branch was not determinative, Ho J.A. proceeded to assess the second.

Appeal Justice Ho, however, denied Universities Canada intervenor status, finding that its submissions were too similar to UofC’s and lacked a new or useful perspective. Conversely, the Court recognized that the Joint Intervenors, comprised of faculty members, could provide a unique and relevant viewpoint, as employees may view access and privacy issues differently than their employers.

Despite noting that UofC had already addressed the Joint Intervenors’ arguments for a broad interpretation of teaching materials and research information, Ho J.A. granted them permission to intervene on the role of “social activism” in research and an alternative approach to applying statutory exemptions. The Court imposed specific filing deadlines, page limits, and restrictions on oral submissions, and ordered the Joint Intervenors to rely on the current evidentiary record.