INGRAM v ALBERTA

The Applicant sought permission to intervene in an Appeal brought by His Majesty the King in right of Alberta (“Alberta”) pursuant to section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, SA 2003, c C-16.5 (the “Second Action”). The certified class in the Second Action seeks to recover losses incurred as a result of Orders issued pursuant to the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37 (the “Public Health Act”) during the COVID-19 pandemic that were later determined to be ultra vires.

In 2024, the Applicant brought a separate Action against Alberta claiming damages pursuant to the Public Health Act (the “First Action”). Alberta brought an Application to summarily dismiss the First Action. The decision of the Summary Dismissal Application is currently pending.

The Applicant sought to intervene in the Second Action because the outcome could impact the First Action and, from his perspective, his ability to access justice. In determining if the Applicant should be permitted to intervene in the Second Action, Justice Woolley considered Rule 14.58(1) which permits a single Judge to grant a person status to intervene in an Appeal. The Court took notice of the fact that the power to allow intervenors is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly.

Woolley J.A. held that intervenors involved in similar litigation are sometimes allowed to intervene and the Applicant met that criteria. However, the Court was not satisfied that the Applicant would provide some expertise or fresh perspective on the subject matter such that the intervenor would be helpful in resolving the Appeal. Thus, Justice Woolley dismissed the Application and did not permit the Applicant to intervene in the Second Action.