Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Business Care Corp sought a stay of proceedings before the Land and Property Rights Tribunal pending appeal of an interim costs denial.
   
• A companion application asked the Court of Appeal to grant a non-lawyer agent, Matthew Joseph Lawrence, a limited right of audience under rule 2.23(4).
   
• Rule 14.48 permits a stay only of matters actually under appeal, not unrelated scheduling or case management directions.
   
• Justice Feth weighed factors from Pacer Enterprises and PurpleRung Foundation in assessing whether Mr Lawrence's representation was warranted.
   
• Evidence of Business Care's insolvency, though described as meagre, was accepted as sufficient for the limited purpose of the stay application.
   
• The City of Edmonton took no position on the audience application, proposed that each party bear its own costs if the stay was dismissed, and Business Care itself took no position on costs.

?

?

Facts of the case

Business Care Corp appealed a decision of the Land and Property Rights Tribunal (LPRT) that denied its request for interim costs in an ongoing expropriation proceeding arising from the City of Edmonton's 2013 expropriation of the City Centre Airport lands, which included a building Business Care leased and occupied. Business Care and other affected parties had applied to the LPRT in 2014 to determine compensation for loss of use of the lands, and Business Care later sought interim costs under section 39 of the Expropriation Act for consulting services provided by Matthew Joseph Lawrence, son of the company's sole shareholder and director, Dennis Lawrence. The LPRT dismissed that interim costs application on March 25, 2026, in a decision cited as 2026 ABLPRT 216, and Business Care filed a notice of appeal on April 1, 2026. Before this Court, Business Care applied under rule 14.48 of the Alberta Rules of Court to stay scheduling mandates, disclosure deadlines, and penalty applications pending before the LPRT, including a substantive scheduling hearing slated for July 17, 2026. Business Care also requested, under rule 2.23(4), permission for Mr Lawrence to represent it on the stay application, since he is not a lawyer.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Section 106 of the Legal Profession Act generally prohibits a non-lawyer agent from representing a corporation in a court proceeding, a prohibition mirrored in rule 2.23(3)(a) and aimed at protecting the public through the fair, competent, and ethical delivery of legal services. Rule 2.23(4) nonetheless gives the Court discretion to grant a right of audience to a non-lawyer agent, though the presumption remains that corporations must be represented by lawyers. Rule 14.48 governs stays pending appeal, and the Court noted that such a stay can only reach consequences stemming from the decision actually under appeal. Rule 9.4(2)(c) was invoked at the end of the decision for preparation of the resulting order.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Feth applied the factors set out in Pacer Enterprises Ltd v Cummings for granting a limited right of audience, including the agent's family relationship with the litigant, whether the agent charges a fee, potential economic hardship, and whether refusing the application would effectively deny representation altogether, alongside the additional consideration from PurpleRung Foundation of whether requiring a lawyer would involve unnecessary delay and expense. Despite describing the evidence of Business Care's financial circumstances as meagre, the Court accepted that the company was insolvent, had no cash reserves or active bank account, and could not meet a standard commercial retainer. Mr Lawrence had represented Business Care before the LPRT for years, showed some legal knowledge, and was not shown to be charging a fee for the stay application itself, and the City took no position on the issue. On that basis, the Court found his representation necessary and warranted for the stay application only, while cautioning that the panel hearing the merits of the appeal might scrutinize the issue more closely. Turning to the stay itself, the Court held that rule 14.48 permits a stay only of what has actually been appealed, and since the scheduling directions and case management directions Business Care sought to stay were separate from the Costs Decision and had not themselves been appealed, they could not be stayed under that rule.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court granted Business Care a limited right of audience for Matthew Joseph Lawrence to represent it on the stay application, but dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings pending appeal, holding that rule 14.48 is not a mechanism to impose a blanket stay of LPRT proceedings simply because an interim costs request was denied. On costs, the City proposed that each party bear its own costs if the stay application was dismissed, Business Care took no position, and the Court directed that each party bear its own costs of the applications — meaning no monetary award was made to either party.