DUVAL v EDMONTON (POLICE SERVICE)

The Appellant appealed a Chambers decision striking her Originating Application that sought, among other relief, amendments to a police investigative report, removal of a trespass notation, and damages for emotional distress, defamation, humiliation, and violations of her Charter rights. The investigative report was issued as part of an investigation undertaken pursuant to the Police Act, RSA 2000 c P-17, because of a complaint made by the Appellant to the professional standards branch of the Edmonton Police Service regarding officers removing her from the Royal Alexandra Hospital.

The Appeal concerned whether portions of the Originating Application proceeding constituted Judicial Review under Rule 3.15, and whether the balance should have proceeded as an Action, pursuant to Rule 3.2. The Appellant filed the Originating Application approximately eight months after the Edmonton Police Service determined there was no reasonable basis for a finding of police misconduct.

The Applications Judge found that requests to amend the investigative report and remove the trespass notation amounted to Judicial Review and were therefore barred by the six‑month limitation in Rule 3.15(2). The Applications Judge also held that the damages claim required a Statement of Claim because the matter involved substantial factual disputes.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the Judicial Review aspects of the proceeding were out of time and properly struck. However, Justice Slatter held that the Applications Judge should have exercised the discretion available under Rule 3.2(6) to make a procedural Order correcting and continuing the proceeding. The Court found no practical impediment to converting the remaining damages claim into a Statement of Claim, particularly given the Appellant’s self-represented status and clear intention to pursue a civil claim. Furthermore, at the time the Originating Application was filed and at the time it was heard, the Appellant was not out of time to file a Statement of Claim.

The Appeal was allowed in part. The Court directed that the Judicial Review portions of the pleading be struck, that the remainder be converted into a Statement of Claim with a new Action number, and that each party bear its own costs.