UAlberta Pro-Life et al. v. University of Alberta, [2015] A.R. TBEd. NO.108

• Judge: Graesser, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 07, 2015
• Citations: [2015] A.R. TBEd. NO.108;2015 ABQB 719

UAlberta Pro-Life v. Alta. Univ., [2015] A.R. TBEd. NO.108

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. NO.108

UAlberta Pro-Life, Amberlee Nicol, Kianna Owen and Cameron Wilson (applicants) v. University of Alberta (respondent)

(1503 13490; 2015 ABQB 719)

Indexed As: UAlberta Pro-Life et al. v. University of Alberta

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Graesser, J.

November 13, 2015.

Summary:

UAlberta Pro-Life and three individuals applied for an "interim-interim" injunction, a temporary injunction, and a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent University of Alberta from: (1) applying its own rules and policies (including the respondent's Code of Student Behaviour) partially and selectively in regards to the applicants; (2) creating and implementing policies which had, as their purpose, effect or both, the restricting of unpopular or controversial expression on campus; and (3) imposing security fees, delays, or other restrictions on the applicants on account of the controversial views of the applicants or on account of the misconduct or potential misconduct of other individuals. The applicants also sought an order in the nature of mandamus.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench denied the interim-interim applications for injunctive relief and relief in the nature of mandamus. Mandamus was confined to judicial review. The court could not consider the request for that remedy. With respect to the interim injunctive relief sought, the applicants met the onus of showing that there was a serious issue to be tried. However, they had not established that they would suffer irreparable harm. The court stated that "It is unclear to me just how involved the Applicants want the University to be in facilitating Pro-Life's events, and this leaves me unconvinced that they would suffer irreparable harm were they to hold an event where the University either provided a generous security detail, or minimal security detail, at no cost to the Applicants or at significant cost to the Applicants." With respect to the balance of convenience, the court concluded that "I have articulated my concerns previously regarding the vagueness of the orders sought, their overbreadth, and their finality. I also noted that they would have the effect of fettering the University's statutory discretion to make and implement policies regarding the conduct of student behaviour on campus. Many of the Applicants' complaints are properly the subject of an application for judicial review. Interlocutory injunctive relief outside of that forum would be a pre-emptive collateral attack on those proceedings. There is no matter of urgency here, nor any need to preserve property. Accordingly, I find that the University would suffer the greatest harm if injunctive relief were granted in the nature sought."

Injunctions - Topic 750

Granting an injunction - Bars - Premature application - See paragraphs 56 to 57.

Injunctions - Topic 1605

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Avoidance of disposition of main issue - See paragraphs 51 and 69.

Injunctions - Topic 1606

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Balance of convenience - See paragraphs 68 to 71.

Injunctions - Topic 1610

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Circumstances when injunction will not be granted - See paragraphs 46 to 71.

Injunctions - Topic 1802

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Requirement of irreparable injury - What constitutes - See paragraphs 66 to 67.

Counsel:

R. Jay Cameron (Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms), for the applicants;

Matthew Woodley (Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer LLP), for the respondent.

This application was heard on October 7, 2015, before Graesser, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on November 13, 2015.