The Applicant, Haruun Ali, sought standing in a proceeding regarding a Restricted Court Access Application filed by the Defendant police officers after the fatal shooting of Mathios Arkangelo. The Plaintiffs, under the Fatal Accidents Act, had alleged police negligence in Arkangelo’s death. Mr. Ali was not a party to the underlying proceeding.

On October 22, 2024, an Interim Restricted Court Access Order (the “Interim Order”) was issued, barring publication of identifying information about the involved officers. Mr. Ali was served with this Interim Order due to his social media activity attempting to identify the officers.

Mr. Ali argued that he was entitled to standing under Rule 6.35 of the Alberta Rules of Court. Specifically, he asserted that by being served the Interim Order he had been given notice of the Restricted Court Access Application. He argued this notice entitled him to standing pursuant to Rule 6.35(a). Alternatively, Mr. Ali agued he ought to be recognized by the Court under Rule 6.35(b) as his interests—namely, his right to freedom of expression—were directly affected by the Restricted Court Access Application.

The Court found that Rule 6.35(a) was not a bright line, nor did it allow anyone bound by “corollary orders to seek automatic standing to intervene in the broader application”. The only persons given notice of the Restricted Court Access Application were the Plaintiffs and the media. Further, with respect to the Applicant’s argument under Rule 6.35(b), the Court found that the restricted court access Application sought only to withhold and prevent publication of a “mere sliver of information”, being the names of the officers. No Order was sought which prevented the media or any member of the public, including the Applicant, from commenting on the facts of the case or the issues at large.