The Applicants originally filed an Originating Application for Judicial Review (“Originating Application”) and then later filed an Amended Originating Application (“Amended Application”). The Amended Application removed all reference to Judicial Review and references to relief by way of Orders for mandamus and prohibition while requesting the same declaratory relief as the Originating Application for Judicial Review.

The Court considered whether the Amended Application was, in fact, an Application for Judicial Review and whether the Amended Application was time barred pursuant to Rule 3.15(2).

The Court noted that Rule 3.15 applies when the Application seeks declaratory relief and that the defining characteristic of Judicial Review is not the form of relief sought but whether there is a decision, act, or omission of a public body or administrative tribunal that is being challenged.

The Court found that the Amended Application requested Judicial Review because it challenged act of the Government of Alberta and the Alberta Gaming, Liquor, and Cannabis Commission (the “Commission”).

The Court noted that Rule 3.15(2) requires an Originating Application for Judicial Review to be filed and served within six months of the date of the decision or act to be reviewed (the “Review Period”) and that the Review Period cannot be extended by the Court.

The Court additionally noted that if an impugned act or decision is alleged to be void for want of jurisdiction, a claim could be advanced outside the Review Period. However, the other challenges which were initiated outside the Review Period could not be advanced.  The Court determined that the Applicant’s allegation that the Commission operated without jurisdiction could proceed despite being initiated outside the Review Period. The Court dismissed other allegations unrelated to jurisdiction because they were not initiated within the Review Period.