RUHL v ALBERTA (HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION), 2015 ABQB 513
3.15: Originating application for judicial review
13.5: Variation of time periods
The Plaintiff applied for an extension of time to file an Application for Judicial Review of a Human Rights Commission Decision. The Applicant had mis-diarized the six month deadline set out in Rule 3.15, and argued that he suffered from mental incapacity which prevented him from meeting the deadline. The Defendants, citing Rule 13.5, argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the six month time period as set out in Rule 3.15.
Justice Veit noted that the authorities emphasize that the Court does not have the power to extend the six month time period in Rule 3.15, and to do so would undermine the policy foundations for that deadline. Failing to diarize the date is precisely the type of conduct Rule 3.15 is intended to discourage. Justice Veit did not discount the possibility that the Court may extend the deadline in the event of a real incapacity, but here there was no supporting evidence of the Applicant lacking mental capacity. The Application was dismissed.View CanLII Details