Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Justice Oviatt dismissed Jacqueline Uhrum's application for judicial review of a decision denying an extension to appeal the start date of her AISH benefits.
   
• New affidavit evidence submitted by Ms. Uhrum was ruled inadmissible because none of the recognized exceptions to the no-new-evidence rule on judicial review applied.
   
• Reasonableness was confirmed as the governing standard of review, consistent with the Vavilov framework.
   
• Evidence showed Ms. Uhrum had notice of her right to appeal at least since 1999, undermining her claim that she only learned of it in 2024.
   
• Although her mental disability was acknowledged as relevant, it did not justify a delay of nearly three decades in seeking an appeal.
   
• Costs were awarded in favour of the AISH Director, subject to the court's discretion and a set schedule for submissions.
   

Facts of the case

Jacqueline Uhrum began receiving benefits under the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) program on August 1, 1996. Approximately 28 years later, she sought an extension of time to appeal that start date. On July 7, 2025, a delegate of the Minister of Assisted Living and Social Services denied her request for an extension, and Ms. Uhrum brought this decision forward for judicial review. Uncontested facts before the Ministerial Delegate showed that Ms. Uhrum had received income support, though not specifically AISH benefits, between 1992 and 1996, and that her AISH application was received on May 3, 1996. Records also included a notation that Ms. Uhrum had indicated on her 1996 application that she had applied for AISH four years earlier, though the AISH Director does not retain records predating 1996. A signed application form dated May 5, 1999 included a declaration that Ms. Uhrum understood she had the right to appeal a decision within 30 days of being told of it. The initial decisions from 1992 and 1996, along with any formal notice of appeal rights from that time, were not part of the certified record before the Ministerial Delegate.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

AISH benefits are governed by the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped Act, SA 2006, c A-45.1, which provides financial assistance to individuals with severe disabilities unable to earn a sustainable income, including living, personal, child, and health benefits. The Act designates a Director, appointed by the Minister, who may grant benefits under section 3. Certain Director's decisions may be appealed to an appeal panel within 30 days of notification of the decision and the right to appeal. Section 10(4) of the Act permits the Minister to extend the appeal period where there are "apparent grounds of appeal and a reasonable explanation for the delay." The court noted that this extension discretion was not part of the Act prior to 2006 or 2007, raising uncertainty over whether the Ministerial Delegate even had authority to extend time for decisions made in 1992 and 1996. On the evidentiary side, Rule 3.22 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 permits the court to consider the certified record along with other permitted evidence, though the general rule remains that new evidence is not admitted on judicial review.

Reasoning and analysis

The court first addressed whether Ms. Uhrum's new affidavit evidence, which included argument, material already in the certified record, and additional records meant to supplement the evidentiary record, could be considered. Citing Alberta Liquor Store Association v Alberta (Gaming and Liquor Commission), 2006 ABQB 904, Gowrishankar v JK, 2019 ABCA 316, and Northern Air Charters (PR) Inc v Alberta Health Services, 2023 ABCA 114, the court reaffirmed that judicial review assesses the reasonableness and procedural fairness of a decision rather than permitting a rehearing. Recognized exceptions, allowing new evidence to show bias, demonstrate breaches of natural justice not apparent on the record, provide background on standing, or address an absent or inadequate record, did not apply, as confirmed with reference to Bergman v Innisfree, 2020 ABQB 661. Consequently, the new evidence was excluded. Turning to the merits, the court applied the reasonableness standard set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, and Edmonton (City) v Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd, 2016 SCC 47. On notice, the court found it was not unreasonable for the Ministerial Delegate to conclude Ms. Uhrum had notice of the initial decision and appeal rights, given her signed 1999 declaration, her ongoing contact with AISH staff, and her participation in at least one prior appeal. Regarding the delay itself, the Ministerial Delegate had accepted that apparent grounds of appeal existed but found no reasonable explanation for the nearly three-decade gap. Ms. Uhrum cited caregiving responsibilities for elderly relatives and friends over roughly 12 years, assisting her mother after an injury, and other unspecified personal matters. The court acknowledged that her significant mental disability could, in some circumstances, justify an extension, but found the evidence insufficient to support a delay of over 10,000 days against a presumptive 30-day appeal period. The court emphasized that longer delays demand more compelling justification, and that the legislature's interest in finality and efficiency must be balanced against fairness to vulnerable claimants.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court concluded that the Ministerial Delegate's decision, taken as a whole, was reasonable both in its rationale and outcome. Ms. Uhrum's application for new evidence was dismissed, as was her application for judicial review, with the Director for the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped and the Minister of Assisted Living and Social Services succeeding as respondents. On costs, the AISH Director was found entitled to costs under Rule 10.29 of the Alberta Rules of Court, subject to the court's discretion; the decision does not fix a monetary amount, instead directing the Director to make submissions of no more than two pages within one week if costs are pursued, with Ms. Uhrum permitted an equivalent reply. As no specific costs figure was determined in the decision, the total monetary award is Not Specified.