The Applicant sought to strike the Respondent’s application for Judicial Review due to the fact that the Applicant was not served as a “directly affected” person or body as required by the Rules. In the alternative, the Applicant sought to be granted status as an intervenor to the Judicial Review.

The Respondent applied for Judicial Review with respect to a decision made by His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta for refusing to negotiate for the Respondent to access a certain area. The Applicant was a third-party First Nation that had a separate agreement for access to the area in question.

The Court considered Rule 3.15, which requires that an originating application for judicial review be served on every person or body directly affected by the application. Rule 3.15 is mandatory and applied strictly. In canvassing the meaning of “directly affected” under Rule 3.15, Justice Oviatt noted that relevant considerations often include contractual and economic relationships or ownership rights. The Court held that while the Applicant would be directly affected if the Respondents were granted access to the lands in question due to their own contractual rights of access, this was not the issue being addressed in the Judicial Review. Rather, the Court was being called to review the decision of the Crown refusing to negotiate for the Respondent to access the lands. The decision of whether to negotiate did not affect the Applicant and as such there was no requirement for them to be served with the Judicial Review.

In considering the Applicant’s alternative relief, the Court noted that the standard for determining whether a party is directly affected is lower than for granting standing - including standard as an intervenor under Rule 2.10. The Court noted that the Applicants did not meet any of the requisite criteria. For the same reasons that the Applicant was not directly affected by the Judicial Review, they would not be directly or significantly affected by the outcome of the proceedings and would not be in a position to provide any special expertise of fresh perspectives on the matter.

As such, the Court dismissed the Applicant’s application in its entirety. There was no requirement for the Applicant to be served with the Judicial Review and they were not entitled to intervener status.