Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ouellette Jr was not included as a party on the valid notice of appeal filed by Ouellette Sr, and no steps were taken to correct this in the almost two years before the appeal was heard.

• The Case Management Officer (CMO) denied the application to add Ouellette Jr as a party, holding it was procedurally irregular and improper, and an attempt to circumvent the proper procedure.

• Adding Ouellette Jr as a party would, in effect, allow him to appeal an applications judge's order directly to the Court of Appeal, which is expressly prohibited under Rule 14.4(4) of the Alberta Rules of Court.

• No legal interest in the outcome of the appeal was demonstrated by Ouellette Jr, as the chambers judge did not adjudicate on aspects of the applications judge's order relating to him.

• The Ouellettes' fairness argument — that the omission was a "slip" owing in part to Ouellette Sr's sleep deprivation — was at odds with counsel's confirmation before the chambers judge that Ouellette Jr had not appealed, without indicating this was the result of an error.

• Justice Shaner confirmed the CMO's decision and dismissed the application after considering the question afresh under Rule 14.36(3).

The underlying dispute and the original action

Christian Sylva Ouellette ("Ouellette Sr") and his son, Christian Joffre Ouellette ("Ouellette Jr"), brought an action against Edward McCann. The Ouellettes alleged they suffered damages from a complaint Mr. McCann made to the Law Society of Alberta about Ouellette Sr. On August 30, 2023, an applications judge summarily dismissed the entire action. Prior to that decision and the resulting order being made, Ouellette Sr filed a notice of appeal in the Court of King's Bench on July 28, 2023, purporting to appeal a judgment made on "June 29, 2023." It named Ouellette Sr and Ouellette Jr as the appellants. That notice of appeal was invalid because the order had not yet been pronounced. On September 5, 2023, Ouellette Sr filed a second notice of appeal, this time citing the August 30, 2023 judgment as the subject of the appeal. Ouellette Jr was not included as a party on that second notice of appeal.

The appeal before the Court of King's Bench

For unknown reasons, the appeal to the Court of King's Bench was not heard until March 27, 2025, almost two years later. Early in the hearing, the chambers judge sought clarification on Ouellette Jr's role, as he was represented by counsel and was attending the hearing virtually, despite not being named as a party. Counsel identified himself as being there for the "co-plaintiff." During the exchange, the chambers judge observed that Ouellette Jr was not a party to the appeal and had not appealed the decision, and counsel confirmed this. No further submissions were made on Ouellette Jr's standing as a party, nor was there any application to add him. Ouellette Sr's appeal was allowed in part. In her reasons for decision, the chambers judge confirmed that because Ouellette Jr did not appeal, his claims against Mr. McCann remained summarily dismissed. As Ouellette Jr was not a party to that appeal, there was no adjudication of the applications judge's dismissal of his claims.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal of Alberta and the CMO's decision

On July 8, 2025, Mr. McCann appealed the chambers judge's order to the Court of Appeal and named Ouellette Sr as the only respondent. On July 14, 2025, Ouellette Sr and counsel on behalf of Ouellette Jr filed a notice of cross-appeal, naming Ouellette Sr and Ouellette Jr as respondents and cross-appellants. The CMO advised that parties cannot normally be added to an appeal through a notice of cross-appeal. On October 17, 2025, Ouellette Sr and counsel for Ouellette Jr applied to the CMO for an order that Ouellette Jr be restored as a party or listed as a cross-appellant. The CMO denied the application, holding it was procedurally irregular and improper. The CMO found that Ouellette Jr should have taken steps to correct this before the chambers judge heard the appeal and he had a significant period of time in which to do so after the notice of appeal was filed. The application to add Ouellette Jr as a party was an attempt to circumvent the proper procedure. The CMO also noted that allowing Ouellette Jr to be added as a party would, in effect, allow him to appeal an order of an applications judge directly to the Court of Appeal, contrary to Rule 14.4(4).

The legal framework for adding parties on appeal

Justice Shaner reviewed the CMO's decision under Rule 14.36(3), which allows any person affected by a decision of a CMO to apply to a single judge to have it rescinded, confirmed, amended or enforced. A single judge hearing such an application considers the question afresh. The Court noted that while it has authority to add parties under Rule 14.57, in accordance with Rule 3.74, and may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to add a party where it is in the interests of justice to do so, the applicant must demonstrate it has a legal interest in the outcome of the appeal; that it is just and convenient to add the applicant as a party; and that the applicant's interests can be adequately protected only if party status is granted.

The fairness argument and its shortcomings

The Ouellettes argued Ouellette Jr should be granted party status as a matter of fairness. They suggested the failure to name Ouellette Jr as a party to the appeal from the applications judge's order was a "slip," owing in part to Ouellette Sr's sleep deprivation. They pointed to the first — and invalid — notice of appeal, which named both Ouellettes as parties, as evidence that failing to name Ouellette Jr in the extant notice of appeal was unintentional. Justice Shaner found that this argument did not address the substantive problem, namely the absence of a legal interest, there being no adjudication of Ouellette Jr's interests because he was not a party to the appeal. Nor did it address the fact that allowing Ouellette Jr to be a party would be tantamount to permitting an appeal directly from the applications judge's order, which is prohibited by the Rules. Notably, Ouellette Jr did not seek to be added as a party in the almost two years between the applications judge's order and when the subsequent appeal was heard. Ouellette Jr's counsel confirmed to the chambers judge that he had not appealed the applications judge's order, and he did not indicate this was the result of an error. This was at odds with the argument presented that the failure to name Ouellette Jr as a party to the appeal below was a result of a "slip."

The ruling and outcome

Justice Shaner confirmed the CMO's decision, and accordingly, the application to have Ouellette Jr added as a respondent and cross-appellant to Ouellette Sr's appeal was dismissed. The Court found that Ouellette Jr had not demonstrated he had a legal interest in the outcome of the appeal, as the chambers judge's order concerned only the interests of Ouellette Sr. Granting Ouellette Jr the relief he sought would, in effect, have allowed him to appeal the applications judge's order directly to the Court of Appeal, which Rule 14.4(4) prohibits. The Estate of Edward McCann was the successful party in this procedural dispute. No monetary amount was ordered, granted, or awarded, as the decision addressed solely the procedural question of party status on appeal.