LC v ALBERTA (METIS SETTLEMENTS CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES, REGION 10), 2011 ABQB 42
2.11: Litigation representative required
2.14: Self-appointed litigation representatives
2.15: Court appointment in absence of self-appointment
This Application involved the appointment of a Next Friend/Litigation Representative. The Application was originally commenced under the “old” Rules. Ms. Lightning, the attorney for L.C., was an interested person who could have stepped forward and been self-appointed as the Litigation Representative for E.M.P. pursuant to “old” Rule 58 or “new” Rule 2.14, but as she wanted to be paid and exempted from liability for costs, the appointment was required to be made by the Court. The Court noted that, under Rule 2.15, the Court clearly has the power to appoint a Litigation Representative in circumstances where a party requiring a Litigation Representative does not have one. The Court went on to state that:
There is no requirement under old Rule 58 or new Rules 2.11(a) or 2.14(1) that the next friend be a parent or guardian of child. New Rule 2.14(1) dealing with litigation representatives speaks of an “interested person”, although that term is not defined in the Rules of Court.
Interested person is a defined term in the Adult Guardianship and Trustee Act and the Court used the same definition. Ms. Lightning was clearly an interested person, but was potentially in a conflict position as she was the attorney of L.C. who was the parent of E.M.P. The Court, with reliance on case law relating to “old” Rule 58, decided that the appropriate Litigation Representative would be someone other than the parent/guardian of the child (which included the attorney of the parent).View CanLII Details