Justice Marion set aside two SafeRoads Alberta (SafeRoads) decisions and remitted them for review before a different adjudicator. Counsel for the Director of SafeRoads wrote to Marion J., indicating that the parties did not agree on the terms of the remitted review, particularly as to whether new issues could be raised or whether new evidence could be adduced, and sought attendance to make oral submissions on these issues, which Marion J. granted. 

The Director asserted that the Recipients were seeking to re-open their case pursuant to Rule 9.13(b). The Court disagreed, finding that the situation was one where the parties were unable to agree on the terms of the remittance and were seeking intervention to settle the terms of the Orders. As the Orders had not yet been entered, the Court had discretion to resolve the dispute pursuant to Rule 9.3. Even if the Orders had been entered, the Court still had discretion to make further Orders pursuant to Rule 9.14.

The Court then considered whether it could make or clarify directions regarding the Recipients’ remitted reviews. Justice Marion set out the appropriate legal framework, noting that Rules 3.24(2)(a) and (b) provide the Court with wide discretion to direct an Administrative Tribunal to reconsider a matter, in whole or part. After setting out the appropriate legal framework, Marion J. clarified the terms of the Orders for the parties.