PURE CANADIAN ENTERTAINMENT LP v ALBERTA GAMING LIQUOR AND CANNABIS COMMISSION

This decision arose in the context of Applications for Judicial Review challenging a decision of the Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Commission (“AGLC”) approving the relocation of a casino licence.

As a preliminary issue, the Court considered whether the Applicants had complied with Rule 3.15(3)(c), which required service of a Judicial Review Application on “every person or body directly affected by the Application.” Although the Applicants had served the proposed licensee, Capital City Casinos Ltd. (“CCC”), they had not served its parent corporation, Mather Gaming and Entertainment Investments Ltd. (“Mather Gaming”). Mather Gaming argued that it was directly affected because it had been referenced in the AGLC’s decision approving the relocation and issuance of the new casino licence.

Justice Whitling reviewed the jurisprudence interpreting Rule 3.15(3)(c), including the guidance that the phrase “directly affected” was to be given its ordinary meaning and interpreted restrictively. The Court noted that the Rule was intended to limit the number of parties who must be served in Judicial Review proceedings and that persons with only an indirect or derivative interest were not captured by the Rule.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that Mather Gaming was not a person or body directly affected by the Judicial Review Applications. Despite references to Mather Gaming in the AGLC Board’s minutes and approval correspondence, the evidentiary record established that CCC had been the Applicant for the licence, the intended recipient of the licence, and the entity that ultimately acquired the casino assets. The Court characterized the Board’s references to Mather Gaming as an administrative error and held that any interest Mather Gaming possessed arose solely through its relationship as parent company of CCC.

Justice Whitling therefore held that Mather Gaming had been only indirectly affected by the Applications and was not required to have been served under Rule 3.15(3)(c). Accordingly, the Applications were not subject to dismissal for non-compliance with the Rule.