Two Applicants applied to intervene in the Appeal (the “Applications”). The underlying issue was the constitutionality of the oaths that must be taken for admission to the Law Society of Alberta.

Slatter J.A. took note that the first Applicant had a particular interest in cases where the law might conflict with legal professionals’ religious beliefs, and that it devoted resources to the education and support of its members, published the Christian Legal Journal, and where appropriate sought to intervene in Court cases that engage its mandate.

The second Applicant described itself as an organization with the resources of a full-time staff devoted exclusively to civil liberties; one that prepared submissions on public policy, engaged in public education, and assisted individuals with complaints about violations of their civil liberties.

Slatter J.A. commented that interventions are permitted under Rule 14.58 and that the test for intervention, as has been stated in a number of cases such as VLM v Dominey Estate, 2023 ABCA 226, is based on 1) whether the proposed intervenor has a particular interest in, or will be directly and significantly affected by the outcome of the Appeal, or 2) whether the intervenor will provide some special expertise, perspective, or information that will help resolve the Appeal.

Slatter J.A. further commented that having a common interest with one of the parties will not necessarily be sufficient unless the intervenor can provide some fresh perspective.

Both Applicants argued that they could provide some special expertise, perspective, or information that would help resolve the Appeal. Having held that the Applications were unopposed, Slatter J.A. grated the Applications.