Walton Development and Management Inc. (“Walton”) applied to be added as a Respondent on an Appeal by Osman Auction Inc. (“Osman”) from a decision of the City of Edmonton Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (“City”). Osman obtained leave to Appeal pursuant to s. 688(3) of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26. Osman opposed the addition of Walton as a party primarily on the basis that adding Walton as a party was ‘belated’: Walton knew of the Application to Appeal but failed to attend. Walton conceded that it did not attend the hearing, but stated that it relied on the position in Saskatchewan Power Corporation v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2013 ABCA 341 (CanLII) that “only in exceptional circumstances should a party be granted respondent status prior to the decision in a leave application”. Watson J.A. noted that there was no prejudice arising from the delay in adding Walton as a Respondent, and determined that Walton’s involvement was therefore not belated.

Watson J.A. concluded that there was no conflict between the decision by the Court in the leave Application and the potential exercise of Rule 14.57 in the instant Application. Further, there was no evidence of prejudice under Rule 3.74(3), as the mere fact that Osman would have an opponent was not prejudice and served only to positively benefit a fair hearing. Watson J.A. granted Walton’s motion to be added as a Respondent on the Appeal.