PICKLE v UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE, 2026 ABKB 659

This decision arose from an Application for Judicial Review of the University of Lethbridge’s decision to cancel a scheduled speaking event. The Applicants alleged that the cancellation infringed their rights under the Charter. As part of the Judicial Review, the Court considered whether additional Affidavit evidence submitted by the Applicants was admissible under Rule 3.22.

Justice Simard confirmed that Rule 3.22 limited the evidence admissible on Judicial Review to the certified record of proceedings and other evidence specifically permitted by the Rule. Under Rule 3.22(d), the Court has discretion to admit additional evidence, but such admission is exceptional. Recognized exceptions include evidence demonstrating bias or breaches of natural justice not apparent from the record, background information necessary to determine an issue such as standing, and evidence addressing an absent or inadequate record. Even where additional evidence is permitted, judicial review cannot be converted into a de novo trial.

The Court also considered Rule 3.22(b.1), which permits affidavit evidence if the Originating Application sought relief other than certiorari or an Order setting aside a decision or act. The Court held that the substance of the relief sought, rather than its formal description, determined whether the provision applied. Although the Applicants had sought declaratory and injunctive relief without expressly requesting that the decision be set aside, the relief necessarily required the Court to set aside the University’s decision. Rule 3.22(b.1) therefore did not apply.

Applying Rule 3.22(d), Simard J. admitted certain documents concerning the University’s relationship with the Government because they provided relevant background information reasonably necessary to determine a disputed issue. However, the Court excluded the remaining additional evidence, including personal opinions, commentary, hearsay and events occurring after the decision, because it fell outside the proper scope of Judicial Review and did not satisfy the recognized exceptions. The Court ultimately set aside the University’s decision on grounds unrelated to the evidentiary ruling.