Legalviews Personal

Rule 3.15 requires that an application for judicial review be served on everyone “directly affected” by the application, within six months of the decision being attacked. Two recent decisions (cited at the end below) help understand who falls within the quoted phrase. The cases’ most useful propositions or examples are listed below.

1. The deadline for such service is mandatory, and missing that deadline usually wipes out the whole application for judicial review (Sturgeon ¶ʼs 42-43, Athabasca ¶ʼs 58-61).

2. The phrase “directly affected” has the ordinary meaning of those words, and is not interpreted restrictively (Sturgeon ¶ 44, Athabasca ¶ 32).

3. What are the relevant basic criteria for deciding who is directly affected, are described (Athabasca ¶ʼs 28-29, 35-38).

4. Deciding who is directly affected is very fact dependent (Sturgeon ¶ 44).

5. Someone directly affected by the original decision being attacked, is probably directly affected now by the judicial review application (Athabasca ¶ʼs 34, 42-46).

6. Some examples are given of persons who were or were not held to be directly affected (Sturgeon ¶ʼs 45-46, 48-50, 57, 59, 65, 84-85, 87).

7. Interests which are remote, speculative, or contingent, do not make that person directly affected (Sturgeon ¶ʼs 52, 81-82).

8. Merely participating in the process giving the original decision does not make one directly affected (Athabasca ¶ʼs 32, 46).

9. Whether a person opposes or supports the original decision is irrelevant, and adversity of impact is not needed (Sturgeon ¶ 44, Athabasca ¶ 31).

10. If coercive relief against a person is sought, often means that the person is directly affected (Athabasca ¶ 67).

11. A policy generally applying to the public or a wide variety of people, usually does not make them all directly affected (Athabasca ¶ 20).

12. Generally the requirement of serving directly affected people applies as much to legislative as to administrative decisions (Athabasca ¶ʼs 19, 21-24).

13. There are some special considerations applying to indigenous bodies and their right to consultation (Athabasca ¶ 39).

14. It is difficult or maybe even impossible to sever some parties from R. 3.15. In other words, failing to serve in time one person directly affected probably kills the whole judicial review application (Athabasca ¶ʼs 62, 66, 72-73).

The two decisions are Athabasca Chipewyan F.N. v. Min. of Env. 2026 ABKB 460 (Aug 12), and Sturgeon L. Cree N. v. Min. of Indigenous Rel. 2026 ABKB 569 (Aug 13).

– Hon. J.E. Côté

WHO IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY JUDICIAL REVIEW?