The Applicant, the Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association (the “CTLA”), applied to intervene in a Restricted Court Access Application (the “Application”) brought by the Defendant police officers. The underlying Action stemmed from allegations by the Plaintiffs that the Defendants’ negligence contributed to the wrongful death of Mathios Arkangelo after a fatal police shooting. The Defendants sought the Application after receiving online death threats and intended to assert confidential information privilege over the sources of those threats.

The CTLA asserted that intervenor status could be granted to them pursuant to either Rule 6.35(b) or Rule 2.10. Nielsen A.C.J. stated that Rule 6.35 was the governing provision, as it applied specifically to Restricted Court Access Applications brought under Rule 6.28, whereas Rule 2.10 dealt with interveners in an Action more broadly. The Court relied on the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant to confirm that the more specific Rule 6.35 prevails over the general discretion conferred by Rule 2.10 in this context.

Rule 6.35 involves a two-step analysis. First, the Court must characterize the subject matter of the proceedings. Second, it must determine what interest, if any, the proposed intervenor has in the proceeding. Rule 6.35 identifies two categories of persons who may be granted standing: those served with or given notice of the Application, and those who “claim to have an interest” in the proceeding. The CTLA fell under the latter category, requiring the Court to assess whether it had a sufficient interest under common law principles.

An “interest” under Rule 6.35 is assessed by considering whether the proposed intervenor will be specially affected by the outcome, and whether it brings special expertise or insight to the issues raised. Other relevant factors include whether the proposed intervenor’s interest is already adequately represented by existing parties, whether intervention would cause delay or prejudice, and whether it would unduly broaden the proceeding or politicize the dispute.

The Court first characterized the Application as a narrow request to anonymize the names of four individual police officers. While the CTLA framed its interest as rooted in broader concerns about police accountability, the Court found that the Application itself did not raise issues of police accountability. The officers’ institutional affiliation with the Edmonton Police Service was not being concealed, and the facts of the shooting would be adjudicated publicly in the underlying Action. As such, the Court found the anonymization request did not engage the broader public interest the CTLA sought to assert.

Secondly, the CTLA argued that it would be specially affected by the outcome because the Application could lead the Court to develop a novel framework with precedential impact on future cases involving police accountability. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the legal tests applicable to restricted Court access Orders and to claims of confidential informant privilege were already well-established in the jurisprudence. The Application did not require the creation of new law.

Lastly, while the CTLA’s work had an important role in ensuring that police conduct themselves within the confines of the law, the Court found that it did not bring any fresh insight or specific expertise in the context of this Application. The parties were already represented by experienced counsel, and the media had been given notice and intended to participate, thereby ensuring robust representation of the open Court principle. The CTLA’s proposed contribution risked duplicating existing arguments, complicating the issues, and causing unnecessary delay. Its suggested framework merely reiterated and blended existing legal tests without offering substantive value to the Court’s analysis.

In conclusion, the Court denied the CTLA’s Application to intervene pursuant to Rule 6.35.