In proceedings initiated by a lessor affected by the expropriation of lands, the Alberta Court of Appeal permitted a non-lawyer to represent the lessor in an application to stay procedural directions issued by the Land and Property Rights Tribunal (LPRT).
The case was Business Care Corp v Edmonton (City), 2026 ABCA 295. In 2013, the respondent City of Edmonton expropriated lands known as the City Centre Airport, including a building leased and occupied by the applicant Business Care Corp.
Land and Property Rights Tribunal proceedings
In 2014, Business Care and others impacted applied to the LPRT for a determination of the proper compensation for the loss of their use of the lands.
Before the LPRT, Business Care applied under s 39 of Alberta’s Expropriation Act, 2000, for interim costs incurred due to the ongoing proceedings. Business Care claimed the cost of consulting services from non-lawyer Mr. Lawrence, the son of Business Care’s sole shareholder and director.
Last Mar. 25, the LPRT denied Business Care’s interim costs application. Separately, the LPRT made certain scheduling directions.
Relief sought at Alberta Court of Appeal
On Apr. 1, before the Alberta Court of Appeal, Business Care filed a notice of appeal against the interim costs ruling.
Under r. 14.48 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 (Rules), Business Care applied to stay “all scheduling mandates, disclosure deadlines, and penalty applications pending before the LPRT” until the final determination of its appeal from the interim costs ruling.
Under r. 2.23(4) of the Rules of Court, Business Care also sought permission for non-lawyer Mr. Lawrence to represent it in the stay application. The city did not oppose this request.
Right of audience granted to corporate agent
Under r. 2.23(4), the Alberta Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to grant Business Care’s application for a limited right of audience solely for the purpose of hearing the stay application.
Without significant countervailing factors, the appeal court described Mr. Lawrence’s representation as necessary and warranted for a hearing of Business Care’s stay application.
The appeal court ruled that Mr. Lawrence could help Business Care argue the stay application, could assist in crystallizing Business Care’s requested relief, and would not jeopardize the public interest and the consumer protection objectives of Alberta’s Legal Profession Act, 2000.
The appeal court noted that Mr. Lawrence:
- was supporting his father’s interest in Business Care
- had been representing Business Care in ongoing LPRT proceedings for years
- had some legal knowledge relevant to those proceedings
- charged Business Care and had yet to receive payment for consultant services in connection with the expropriation proceedings, including activities that the LPRT described as “representative quasi-legal work”
- appeared not to be pursuing a fee from Business Care for appearing on the stay application, which was a simple proceeding affecting modest interests
“Business Care should not assume that the Panel hearing the merits of the appeal will grant an audience for Mr Lawrence to represent it at the oral hearing,” wrote Justice Kevin Feth for the court. “The merits of the appeal are more complicated and the limited evidence about Business Care’s inability to pay for a lawyer might warrant greater scrutiny.”
Alberta Court of Appeal denies stay
Ultimately, however, the Alberta Court of Appeal declined a stay pending appeal. Under r. 14.48, the appeal court held that it could not stay the following, which had not been subject to appeal:
- the LPRT’s carrying out of steps and deadlines pursuant to the litigation plan that it had set
- the LPRT’s enforcement of any penalties for non-compliance
- the LPRT’s case management directions following the filing of the stay application
The appeal court concluded that r. 14.48 could not serve as a blanket stay of the LPRT proceeding merely due to a denial of an interim costs application.
Application costs
Lastly, the Alberta Court of Appeal ordered all parties to bear their own application costs.
More Alberta Court of Appeal cases
Here are some other recent decisions by the Court of Appeal of Alberta.
In an action arising from investments in an oil and gas producing zone in east central Alberta since 2004, the appeal court issued a June 1 decision affirming a chambers judge’s refusal to strike the claim for delay.
In a case where a business partner deposited an altered cheque into an account he solely controlled, the appeal court made a Feb. 10 decision finding it appropriate to summarily dismiss the defrauded party’s action against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation news on the main page!