REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ALBERTA v MORE

The Applicant, the Registrar of the Real Estate Council of Alberta (the “Registrar”), applied for Judicial Review of a decision of a hearing panel of the Real Estate Council of Alberta (the “Panel”). The Panel declined to proceed with a disciplinary hearing against a former licensee (the “Respondent”) after finding that the Notice of Hearing was not properly served (the “Notice”). In the alternative, the Registrar sought an Order for substitutional service or dispensing with service.

As a preliminary matter, Justice Dunlop considered Rule 3.15(2), and held that the Judicial Review Application was commenced within the six-month limitation period because time began to run when the Panel issued its written reasons, rather than its earlier oral decision. Justice Dunlop found that the oral decision did not provide sufficient reasons for the parties to understand the basis of the decision or assess whether Judicial Review was warranted.

On the merits, Dunlop J. rejected the Registrar’s argument that service by registered mail was complete upon sending. The Court held that the Panel reasonably interpreted the applicable statutory service provisions and procedural fairness requirements in concluding that service by registered mail required acknowledgement of receipt. Justice Dunlop further held that the Panel reasonably determined that the obligation of current licensees to maintain updated contact information did not alter the service requirements for the Notice, particularly as the Respondent was no longer a licensee.

The Court considered the Registrar’s alternative request for substitutional service or an Order dispensing with service. Applying Rule 11.28, Justice Dunlop held that the Registrar failed to establish that posting the Notice on the Real Estate Council of Alberta’s website was likely to bring the Respondent's attention to the proceeding. The Court further found that the requirements for dispensing with service under Rule 11.29 had not been met, including the requirement for evidence that the issues were unlikely to be disputed. Justice Dunlop also noted that granting the requested relief would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme favouring the timely resolution of disciplinary proceedings.

In the result, Justice Dunlop dismissed the Judicial Review Application and the Registrar's alternative Application for substitutional service or an Order dispensing with service. The Court directed that each party bear its own costs.