SIKSIKA FAMILY SERVICES v PW

A former foster parent (“PW”) applied for access and private guardianship of two children who were removed from her care after her foster home licence was not renewed by Siksika Family Services (the “Director”). PW sought to compel the Director to prepare a home study report required for her private guardianship application. Justice T.K. Davis of the Alberta Court of Justice dismissed the Director's application to strike PW's access and private guardianship applications. The Director appealed Justice T.K. Davis’s decision dismissing its application to strike.

The Court confirmed that since neither the Court of Justice Act nor its regulations provided a practice or procedure for dealing with applications to strike, the Court of Justice was entitled to apply the Alberta Rules of Court, more specifically the practice and procedure to strike applications under Rule 3.68.

The Court went on to confirm that under Rule 3.68(1), a Court may strike an application if it constitutes an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 3.68(2)(d). At common law, abuse of process has been described as proceedings “unfair to the point that they are contrary to the interest of justice”.

The Director argued that PW’s private guardianship application improperly duplicated or challenged prior administrative decisions, amounting to an abuse of process or collateral attack. However, the Court distinguished the caselaw relied upon by the Director from the case at hand because PW was not seeking to review the earlier decision and had introduced new evidence. Ultimately, the Court held that private guardianship decisions fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court and had not been finally decided in the prior process, thus PW’s application was neither an abuse of process nor a collateral attack.