OUELLETTE v MCCANN ESTATE

The Applicant and his son, Ouellette Jr., commenced an Action alleging damages arising from a complaint made by the Respondent to the Law Society of Alberta. The Action was summarily dismissed in its entirety by an Applications Judge.

The Applicant appealed that dismissal to the Court of King’s Bench, but Ouellette Jr. was not named in the Notice of Appeal and did not take steps to be added as a party. The Chambers Judge allowed the Applicant’s appeal in part, expressly confirming that Ouellette Jr.’s claims remained dismissed because he was not a party to the appeal. When the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, the Applicant and Ouellette Jr. sought to add Ouellette Jr. as a Respondent and Cross‑Appellant. That request was denied by a Case Management Officer (“CMO”), prompting this Application for review.

Shaner J.A. dismissed the Application and confirmed the CMO’s decision, refusing to add Ouellette Jr. as a Respondent or Cross‑Appellant to the Appeal. The Court held that Ouellette Jr. had no right to party status on the Appeal and that permitting him to be added would be procedurally improper and contrary to the Rules.

Appeal Justice Shaner held that only parties whose interests were adjudicated below may appeal, and Ouellette Jr. never appealed the Applications Judge’s decision nor participated as a party in the appeal to the Court of King’s Bench. As a result, there was no Order affecting his interests from which he could appeal. Granting him party status at this stage, the Court held, would effectively allow a direct appeal from an Applications Judge to the Court of Appeal, which is expressly prohibited by the Rules. Although the Court has authority to add parties under the Rules, Shaner J.A. found that Ouellette Jr. failed to demonstrate a legal interest in the Appeal or that it was just and convenient to add him. The Court therefore concluded that the Application was an impermissible attempt to circumvent proper appellate procedure and dismissed it accordingly.