SHODUNKE v ALBERTA

The Court considered an Application by the Income Support and Employment Program (“ISE”) to strike Mr. Shodunke’s claim challenging ISE’s decision to deny him income support benefits for October 2021. Mr. Shodunke had applied for benefits but failed to provide complete financial information as required under the Income and Employment Supports Act, SA 2003, c I-0.5, including 30-day bank statements for all household members. Notably, he refused to submit his wife’s financial records, taking the position that her income should not be relevant. As a result, the application was closed due to insufficient documentation.

Mr. Shodunke appealed that decision, but the Citizen’s Appeal Panel (the “Panel”) dismissed the appeal on May 19, 2023, finding that the Director acted reasonably in requesting spousal financial records, given that eligibility must be assessed at the household level. The Panel concluded that Mr. Shodunke had not provided sufficient documentation to determine his eligibility. Mr. Shodunke also filed a human rights complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which declined to accept the complaint. The Commission explained that the denial was based on neutral eligibility criteria and not discriminatory conduct. Subsequently, Mr. Shodunke filed a Statement of Claim, arguing that the request for spousal information was unreasonable and discriminatory, violating his rights under both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act.

ISE applied to strike the claim pursuant to Rule 3.68. The Court emphasized that the threshold pursuant to Rule 3.68(2)(b)—that it must be plain and obvious the claim will fail—had been met. Justice Akgungor found that the claims under sections 7, 8, 12, and 15 of the Charter lacked material facts and merely asserted conclusions. Claims under the Alberta Human Rights Act were struck pursuant to Rule 3.68(2)(a) because the Court had no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction lied with the Human Rights Commission, which had already dismissed the complaint. Pursuing the same claim again in civil court amounted to an abuse of process, pursuant to Rule 3.68(2)(d). The Statement of Claim also sought remedies, including $5 million in damages and a perpetual injunction, that were either unavailable, excessive, or unsupported, and thus struck.

Although Mr. Shodunke’s claim effectively challenged the Panel’s decision, he had commenced his proceeding improperly by way of Statement of Claim. The Court held that such a claim must be commenced by way of Originating Application pursuant to Rule 3.15(1). While the Statement of Claim was filed within the six-month limitation period under Rule 3.15(2), Mr. Shodunke failed to serve the Minister of Justice, as required by Rule 3.15(3)(b). Akgungor J.  reaffirmed that this service requirement is strict and mandatory, and failure to comply is fatal to the proceeding, regardless of whether the Minister would have participated.

Recognizing that the claim was effectively a Judicial Review filed in the wrong form, the Court considered Rule 1.5, which permits the curing of procedural irregularities where there is no irreparable harm and it is in the interests of justice. Finding no prejudice to the Defendants and recognizing that Mr. Shodunke had taken other steps consistent with Judicial Review, the Court converted the surviving portions of the Statement of Claim into an Originating Application for Judicial Review. Nonetheless, the Application was ultimately dismissed due to non-compliance with the mandatory service requirement under Rule 3.15(3)(b).

The Court further concluded that even if the Originating Application had not been dismissed for procedural non-compliance, the decision under review would have been upheld as reasonable. The Panel had correctly interpreted the statutory definition of “cohabiting partner” and determined that Mr. Shodunke’s financial interdependence with his wife required disclosure of her financial information. The Panel reasonably found that the documentation provided was insufficient, and the denial of benefits was justified under the governing legislation. Accordingly, the Court granted the Application to strike, dismissed the converted Originating Application, and concluded the matter.