This was an Application for Judicial Review, pursuant to an Originating Application which named the Alberta Human Rights Commission (“AHRC”) and others as Respondents. The Applicant, a self-represented litigant, had their security license suspended pursuant to section 20(h) of the Security Services and Investigators Act, SA 2008 c S-4.7 (the “Security Act”), due to criminal charges of possession and distribution of child pornography. Instead of following proper procedure to request a review of the decision by the Director of Law Enforcement within 30-days, the Applicant sent a letter to the Registrar. The Peace Officer and Security Program responded to the letter, informing the Applicant that the request for review was not received within the 30-day period. As a result, the Applicant filed several Human Rights Complaint’s against the Peace Officer and Security Program, and subsequently the AHRC when the Complaint’s were rejected.

The Applicant filed a lengthily Affidavit in addition to the original proceedings, which the Respondents contested should not be considered. Referring to Rule 3.22, the Respondents argued that additional Affidavit evidence is permissible in four specific circumstances. Rickards J. stated that these exceptions exist unless Rule 3.22 (b.1) is applicable. Rickards J. determined Rule 3.22 (b.1) applied, since the Applicant was clearly seeking more than an Order in the nature of certiorari or an Order to set aside a decision or act. Rickards J. allowed the Affidavit.

Rickards J. noted the Applicant had requested to have his name anonymized in his brief but failed to properly apply for a Restricted Access Order as per Rule 6.31. Additionally, Rickards J. found the Applicant did not present arguments satisfying the necessity and proportionality criteria of the test for a Restricted Access Order, as outlined in Edmonton Police Service v Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2013 ABCA 236. Furthermore, Rickards J. noted the Applicant failed to notify the media as required under Rule 6.32 when seeking a Restricted Access Order. Consequently, Rickards J. denied the Applicants request for a Restricted Access Order.

In assessing whether any of the decisions made by the Respondents were eligible for Judicial Review, Rickards J. referenced Rule 3.15(2), which stipulates that an Originating Application for Judicial Review must be filed and served within six months of the decision. Rickards J. concluded that none of the decisions made by the Peace Officer and Security Program, which the Applicant contested, fell within the six-month statutory limit and therefore were not subject to Judicial Review. Regarding decisions made by the AHRC decisions, only one decision challenged by the Applicant fell within the six-month limit and was eligible for Judicial Review. However, applying the reasonableness standard of review established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, Rickards J. found that the Applicant did not demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable. Rickards J. emphasized that the decision was justified, transparent, and clear in articulating why the Appellants claim could not proceed.

Rickards J. dismissed the Application for Judicial Review.