The Applicant, a Walmart employee, was mistakenly detained by Calgary Police Service (CPS) officers and subsequently released without charges. The Applicant filed a complaint against the officers, which was dismissed by the Chief of Police without a hearing. The Applicant sought Judicial Review of this Decision, which was initially set aside by the Court. However, that Decision was challenged, and the Respondents brought an Application to set aside the Judicial Review Decision, alleging that the Originating Application was not properly served on the Respondent or the Minister of Justice, both said to be required under Rule 3.15(3).

The Court concluded that since an Originating Application for Judicial Review must be filed and served within six-months after the date of the Decision, pursuant to Rule 3.15(2), and because Rule 3.15(2) provides that Rule 13.5 (which allows for variation of time periods) does not apply to the six-month limitation period, the six-month deadline in Rule 3.15 is absolute and cannot be extended. Therefore, if the six-month time limit for filing and serving an Originating Application for Judicial Review was not satisfied, the Originating Application may be struck.

Rule 3.15 requires service on the Chief, Alberta’s Minister of Justice and “every person or body directed affected by the application.” The Court concluded that since the Crown or statutory body is always implicated in administrative law, they must be given notice of Applications that ask the court to contemplate a Judicial Review. The Applicant argued that that service on the Chief or CPS was sufficient to encompass service on the officers. However, the Court noted that it is patent from the statutory and regulatory framework that there are cases in which the Chief and CPS as an organization have interests different from the sworn officers involved in policing. Further, the Police Act makes plain that an officer is regarded as a public office holder who is independent of the municipality, not its agent or employee, and does not act as a government functionary or agent when investigating a crime or making an arrest. The Court concluded that police officers were legally separate from CPS and the office of the Chief; and were directly affected by the Judicial Review Application. Thus, the Applicant was required to serve them with their Judicial Review Application. The Court further noted, in obiter, that there are cases where actual knowledge of an Application may suffice, even where service was not effected. However, the evidence in this case was to the contrary, and supported that the police officers had no knowledge of the Application.

In Response to the Applicant’s argument that the Application must be governed by considerations of fairness under Rule 1.2, and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to effect fairness notwithstanding the Rules, the Court concluded that there are specific procedures and time limitations governing Judicial Review, and no legitimate basis existed on which the Court could disregard them. The Court went on to say that it was illusory to posit a distinction between procedural and substantive fairness, and that Rule 1.2, cannot be used to subvert Rules that specifically address points such as service requirements and time limitations for Judicial Review.

Thus, the Action commenced for Judicial Review was struck, pursuant to Rule 3.68