PIERCE v ALBERTA (APPEALS COMMISSION FOR ALBERTA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION), 2019 ABQB 443
3.15: Originating application for judicial review
3.2: How to start an action
3.21: Limit on questioning
3.22: Evidence on judicial review
3.8: Originating applications and associated evidence
10.49: Penalty for contravening rules
The Applicant, Price, applied to the Court to challenge a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) Appeals Commission.
The Applicant commenced the Action by filing an Originating Application in the form described in Rule 3.8. This caused some confusion as the Applicant also served the Attorney General of Alberta, which would indicate that the Application was for Judicial Review. As the Court noted, the Application requirements for Judicial Review are typically different than the Application requirements for a statutory Appeal. The requirements for a Judicial Review Application are spelled out in Rule 3.15.
The Court resolved this confusion by noting its authority under Rule 3.2 to make any procedural Order necessary to ensure an Action proceeds in the proper forum. The Application was then treated as an Application for Judicial Review.
As a preliminary matter, the Court considered the Applicant’s request to have new evidence considered in the Judicial Review hearing. With reference to Rule 3.21, which limits Questioning on a Judicial Review Application, and Rule 3.22, which stipulates the evidence the Court can consider on Judicial Review, the Court rejected the Applicant’s request to introduce new evidence.
The Court dismissed the Application. The Respondent, WCB, asked the Court to consider awarding Costs against the Applicant’s lawyer because the Applicant’s Brief was filed late. However, the Court did not find that the lawyer’s behaviour amounted to more than a “mistake, error in judgment or mere negligence” as required by Rule 10.49. The Court declined to award Costs against the lawyer.View CanLII Details