STURGEON LAKE CREE NATION v ALBERTA (MINISTER OF INDIGENOUS RELATIONS), 2026 ABKB 569

O'Leary Digital Limited ("ODL") applied to strike a Judicial Review Application brought by the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation (the "Nation"). It argued that ODL was “directly affected” by the Application and therefore was required to be served, but was not, within the mandatory six-month period prescribed by Rule 3.15. Alternatively, ODL sought intervenor status under Rule 2.10 or to be added as a Respondent pursuant to Rule 3.75.

The Judicial Review challenged the issuance of a licence under the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3 (the "Water Licence") to the Municipal District of Greenview (the "Municipality"). ODL asserted an interest in the Judicial Review based on an agreement with the Municipality purporting to transfer the Water Licence to ODL (the “Agreement”). The Nation served the Municipality and Alberta, but not ODL.

The Court dismissed ODL's Application in its entirety.

As a preliminary matter, Justice Johal found that ODL had improperly redacted the Agreement, which it intended to rely on. ODL argued that it only redacted irrelevant portions of the Agreement. However, in light of the modern approach to contract interpretation, requiring contracts to be interpreted as a whole, the Court found the entire Agreement to be relevant. The Court acknowledged its authority to strike part of an Affidavit containing improper information pursuant to Rule 3.68(4)(a). However, Justice Johal declined to do so, recognizing that ODL insisted on the redactions to its own peril. 

Johal J. concluded that the Nation was not required to serve ODL. While Rule 3.15 prescribes a strict 6-month deadline to give notice to persons "directly affected" by a Judicial Review Application, the Court found that ODL was not directly affected. ODL was neither the licence holder nor the licence applicant. None of the recognized “directly affected” categories applied.

The Court further found that ODL had not established a trust or commercial interest in the Water Licence. The trust argument failed because the test for a trust was not met, and any commercial interest was merely an indirect and speculative economic interest arising from ODL’s contractual relationship with the Municipality.

The Court also found that ODL had failed to prove a contractual interest in the Water Licence. ODL’s alleged contractual entitlement depended on a series of future contingencies. ODL’s own redactions to the Agreement prevented the Court from determining whether ODL's contractual rights had vested or when any entitlement to the licence would crystallize.

Although unnecessary to the result, the Court observed that the Nation had taken reasonable steps to identify and serve all directly affected parties. ODL's representatives communicated with the Nation under different corporate identities, declined to provide requested information about the Agreement, and repeatedly denied having an interest in the Water Licence. The Nation did not know ODL existed and, given the representatives’ conduct, could not reasonably have been expected to identify and serve ODL.

The Court also refused to grant ODL intervenor status under Rule 2.10. Justice Johal found that ODL lacked a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the Judicial Review because it would not be directly and significantly affected by the outcome. Moreover, ODL's participation was unnecessary, would not provide a useful perspective unavailable from existing parties, and risked complicating and delaying the proceeding.

For the same reasons, the Court declined to add ODL as a Respondent under Rule 3.75.