This was an Application to certify an additional class of corporations and business organizations (“Proposed Corporate Class”) in the ongoing class proceeding in Ingram v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 420. The Court considered Rule 4.14 in the context of its authority to control proceedings and manage certification issues.

Justice Feasby found that the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Corporate Class created a significant conflict of interest because the pleadings and submissions positioned small businesses as victims of the Chief Medical Officer’s Health Orders while suggesting that large corporations benefitted from them. This framing meant that the Plaintiffs and their counsel could not fairly represent all members of the Proposed Corporate Class, as required by the Class Proceedings Act, SA 2003, c C-16.5.

Under Rule 4.14, which empowers a Case Management Judge to make any procedural Order necessary for the efficient and fair conduct of a proceeding, the Court exercised its discretion to adjourn the Certification Application. Justice Feasby held that an adjournment, rather than a refusal, was appropriate to allow the Plaintiffs to address the conflict and potentially reframe or restructure the class. He noted that Rule 4.14 supported this procedural intervention, consistent with the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to manage proceedings.

The Court noted that the Plaintiffs could consider amending the pleadings, redefining the class (for example, limiting it to small corporations), appointing additional representative plaintiffs, or obtaining separate representation for different classes of corporations. The Application to certify the Proposed Corporate Class was adjourned sine die under Rule 4.14 to preserve fairness and efficiency in the ongoing class action.