UHRUM v ALBERTA (DIRECTOR FOR THE ASSURED INCOME FOR THE SEVERELY HANDICAPPED)

The Applicant sought Judicial Review of a decision denying her request for an extension of time to appeal the commencement date of her benefits under the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (“AISH”) program. The Applicant began receiving AISH benefits in 1996 and applied for the extension in 2025.

As a preliminary issue on Judicial Review, the Applicant filed multiple Affidavits containing argument, information already included in the Certified Record, and additional records directed at the merits of the decision.

Justice Oviatt confirmed that, pursuant to Rule 3.22, the Court may consider the Certified Record of Proceedings and any additional evidence it permits. However, Judicial Review is not a rehearing. The Court’s role is to assess the reasonableness and procedural fairness of the administrative decision based on the record before the decision-maker. As a result, the general rule is that evidence not before the decision-maker is inadmissible on Judicial Review.

The Court reviewed the recognized exceptions to this rule, including where additional evidence is necessary to establish bias, demonstrate breaches of natural justice not apparent on the record, provide background information, or address circumstances where the decision-maker created no record or an inadequate record.

None of the exceptions applied. The Affidavits and documents were largely argumentative, duplicative of the Certified Record, or consisted of materials that were available to the Applicant at the time of her extension request but were not put before the decision-maker.

On the merits of the Judicial Review, Oviatt J. applied the reasonableness standard. The Court held that the decision was reasonable, including the finding that the Applicant had notice of her right to appeal and had not provided a sufficient explanation for an extension of nearly three decades from a 30-day appeal period. The Application for Judicial Review was dismissed.

The Court dismissed both the Application to admit new evidence and the Judicial Review.