Articles
<< back to all ArticlesThe Strict Deadlines for Judicial Review
In an earlier blog post, I outlined the basics of judicial review. This post discusses a judicial review trap for the unwary. It has ensnared self-represented litigants and experienced lawyers alike. The trap is the strict six-month time limit on launching a judicial review.
Under the Alberta Rules of Court, you commence a judicial review by filing an “Originating Application for Judicial Review”. Rule 3.15(2) of the Rules requires that this document be filed and served on the other parties within six months of the decision or act you wish to challenge:
(2) Subject to rule 3.16, an originating application for judicial review to set aside a decision or act of a person or body must be filed and served within 6 months after the date of the decision or act, and rule 13.5 does not apply to this time period.[1]
This can be a tight timeline. In most civil lawsuits, you have two years to file a claim from the date you were wronged and more time afterwards to serve your claim on the other side. For judicial reviews, you only have six months. What’s more, you also need to serve your application within that six-month period. The Rules are very specific about who you must serve your application on. You must serve:
(a) the person or body in respect of whose act or omission a remedy is sought,
(b) the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General for Canada, or both, as the circumstances require, and
(c) every person or body directly affected by the application.[2]
Unlike many deadlines in the Rules, if you are late in filing or serving your application for judicial review, the consequences are severe. The Court has no authority to extend or vary the timelines. Even if you have a compelling explanation for missing the deadline, there is nothing the Court can do. The Court knows this rule is harsh and inflexible, especially for self-represented litigants. But it doesn’t matter: lawyer or self-represented litigant, missing this deadline is fatal.
There are good reasons for having a harsh deadline. Judicial review applications challenge decisions of public bodies that we all rely on to shape our everyday lives. A strict time-limit to challenge these decisions gives us all certainty and confidence that we can rely on these public decisions. The harshness of the rule and lack of discretion helps everyone. A discretionary test would make it impossible to know when we can rely on decisions with certainty.
A good example of the harshness of Rule 3.15 is Tartal v Alberta (Human Rights Commission).[3] The Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint Ms. Tartal made against the Whitecourt Minor Hockey Association. Ms. Tartal wanted to challenge that decision and filed for judicial review. Ms. Tartal’s application was filed six months and two days after the date of the Commission’s decision and was not served on the Hockey Association. Ms. Tartal had sent her application to court for filing within the six-month timeline, but did not receive a filed copy back until a few days later, after the six-month deadline. The Court struck Ms. Tartal’s application because it was neither filed nor served in time. Those mistakes were fatal.
The Rules are complex. Litigants are presumed to know the law and to know the Rules. Thankfully, many slips and minor errors can be fixed by agreement or by the Court. But the six-month deadline for commencing a judicial review cannot be fixed. It is a deadly trap.
[1] Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, r 3.15(2).
[2] Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, r 3.15(3).
[3] Tartal v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2023 ABKB 381.
This post is meant to provide information only and is not intended to provide legal advice. Although every effort has been made to provide current and accurate information, changes to the law may cause the information in this post to be outdated.
