MCIVER v ALBERTA (ETHICS COMMISSIONER), 2017 ABQB 695
2.10: Intervenor status
3.15: Originating application for judicial review
3.44: When third party claim may be filed
3.74: Adding, removing or substituting parties after close of pleadings
3.75: Adding, removing or substituting parties to originating application
The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta applied under Rule 3.75(2)(b) to be added as a Respondent to a Judicial Review Application filed by an elected member of the Alberta Legislature, McIver. The Originating Application related to a Decision by the Ethics Commissioner against McIver for a breach of the Conflicts of Interest Act, RSA 2000, c C-23. Justice Eamon noted that Rule 3.75(2)(b) provides that a Respondent may be added to a Judicial Review Application where the Court is satisfied that the Order should be made, and Rule 3.15(3)(c) provides that an Application for Judicial Review must be served on every person or body directly affected by the Application.
Justice Eamon noted that there were few cases that interpreted Rule 3.75 in which a Respondent sought to be added to the Application against the wishes of the Applicant. Eamon J. considered the historical context of Rule 3.75 and noted that Rule 3.75 along with Rule 3.74, which provides for the adding, removing or substituting of parties after the close of pleadings, are successors to the old Rule 38. Justice Eamon determined that the test under the old Rule 38 was helpful to the interpretation of Rules 3.74 and 3.75: the Applicant must have a legal interest in the outcome of the proceedings; it must be just and convenient to add the Applicant as a party; and the Applicant would not be adequately protected unless it was allowed to participate in the proceedings. Eamon J. also noted that a party may be added to an Action pursuant to Rule 2.10, which provides that a Court may grant status to an Intervenor, but it is not necessary to join Intervenors as parties.
Eamon J. considered the legal rights and obligations of the Speaker, and determined that the Speaker would be significantly affected by some of the issues that could arise on Judicial Review. Further, it would be just and convenient to allow the Speaker to participate and that the Speaker’s interests would not be adequately protected if he was not allowed to participate in the Judicial Review Application. The Application was granted.View CanLII Details