TSUU T'INA GAMING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v ALBERTA GAMING, LIQUOR AND CANNABIS COMMISSION, 2023 ABCA 135
FEEHAN, HO AND KIRKER JJA
3.15: Originating application for judicial review
The Appellants appealed a Chambers Judge’s finding that all but one of their claims advanced in their Application (the “Application”) were time-barred. The Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Chambers Judge’s Decision and dismissed the Appeal.
The Chambers Judge determined that the Application was an Originating Application for Judicial Review pursuant to Rule 3.15 because a decision, act, or omission of a public body or administrative tribunal was being challenged and declaratory relief was sought. The Chambers Judge further found 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 and that this limitation period could not be extended by the Court.
The Chambers Judge found that the Decision being challenged was made on October 1, 2020. The Application was filed on April 7, 2021, outside the six-month limitation period. However, the Chambers Judge found that the six-month limitation period did not apply to jurisdictional questions as the passage of time cannot render an otherwise invalid Decision or act valid. The Chambers Judge concluded that the remaining remedies sought were all time barred, including whether the Respondent acted unreasonably, in bad faith, in a conflict of interest, in breach of statutory and fiduciary duties, and failed to consult.
The Court confirmed that Rule 3.15 provides that an Originating Application for Judicial Review must be filed and served within six months after the date of the decision or act, and that this limitation period may not be stayed, extended, or shortened by the Court. The Court further held that the Chambers Judge’s finding on this issue was reasonable and did not display any palpable and overriding error.View CanLII Details