BUSINESS CARE CORP v EDMONTON (CITY), 2026 ABCA 295

The underlying Action arose out of the City of Edmonton's 2013 expropriation of lands comprising the former City Centre Airport. Business Care Corp. (“BCC”) leased and occupied a building on the expropriated lands and commenced proceedings before the Land and Property Rights Tribunal (“LPRT”) for compensation. BCC applied for interim costs, which the LPRT dismissed (the “Costs Decision”). BCC appealed the Costs Decision. While the Appeal was pending, BCC applied for a stay to prevent the LPRT from proceeding with steps and deadlines contemplated by a litigation plan (the “Stay Application”).

BCC first sought permission for Matthew Lawrence, the son of the corporation's sole shareholder and director, who was not a lawyer, to represent it in the Stay Application. The Court reviewed the general rule that corporations must be represented by lawyers and that non-lawyer representation is prohibited absent Court authorization. However, Rule 2.23(4) affords a Judge discretion to allow a non-lawyer agent to appear in appropriate circumstances.

The Court considered factors such as the relationship between the representative and the corporation, whether the representative is being paid, the corporation's financial circumstances, the complexity, and whether denying representation would effectively leave the corporation without any representation. The Court determined that BCC had provided sufficient evidence that it lacked the resources to retain legal counsel. Given his familial relationship to the corporation's principal, the modest nature of the Stay Application, and the absence of public-interest concerns, the Court granted Mr. Lawrence a limited right to appear at the Stay Application.

The Court then addressed the Stay Application itself. The Stay BCC sought was to prevent the LPRT from proceeding with steps and deadlines contemplated by a litigation plan, and the enforcement of any penalties resulting from non-compliance.

The Court held that BCC’s Application in this regard was flawed. A stay pending appeal can only affect the Order that is actually under appeal and the consequences flowing directly from that Order. BCC appealed only the Costs Decision. The procedural directions BCC wished to suspend did not relate to the Costs Decision and fell outside the scope of Rule 14.48. The Application was therefore dismissed.