3.15: Originating application for judicial review
3.75: Adding, removing or substituting parties to originating application

Case Summary

The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (“APEGA”) applied to be added as a party to a Judicial Review in which the Applicant had sought, among other things, a declaration that a professional technologist should be considered an “engineer” under the Respondent’s rules. APEGA argued that the Action related to issues under its regulatory mandate.

Justice Yungwirth noted that pursuant to Rule 3.15(3)(c), an Originating Application for Judicial Review must be served on every person or body affected directly by the Application. APEGA had not been served with the Originating Application. Her Ladyship also noted that on Application, the Court may add a party to an Action if it is satisfied that such an Order should be made, pursuant to Rule 3.75(2)(b). However, the Court may not do so if it would cause prejudice to a party not compensable through a Costs award, pursuant to Rule 3.75(3).

Her Ladyship then explained that the Court must first consider whether the Applicant has a “legal interest in the outcome of the proceeding”. If so, then the Court must then ask whether it is “just and convenient” to add the Applicant as a party, and whether the Applicant’s interests would only be adequately protected if it were made a party. Her Ladyship found that APEGA had a legal interest in the proceedings, that it would be just and convenient to add APEGA as a party, and that APEGA’s interests would only be adequately protected if it were made a party, as there was currently no party involved in the Action representing the interests of professional engineers. Finally, Justice Yungwirth held that it would not be prejudicial to add APEGA as a party. As such, APEGA’s Application was granted.

View CanLII Details