Coalition for Justice and Human Rights Ltd v Edmonton (City), 2024 ABKB 26

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Coalition for Justice and Human Rights Ltd v Edmonton (City), 2024 ABKB 26 Date: 20240116 Docket: 2303 15571 Registry: Edmonton Between: Coalition for Justice and Human Rights Ltd. Plaintiff - and - City of Edmonton Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice J.D. Martin _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] The issues of accessible housing and ensuring unhoused persons have a place to live are national issues that impacts all Canadians.

The efforts of both the government and community organizations are required to address these issues. Though no solution to the current crisis has yet been found, it is only through consultation, cooperation, and compassion that we will find a way forward. [ 2 ] The Plaintiff, Coalition for Justice and Human Rights Ltd., (the “Coalition”) has filed a Statement of Claim seeking several declarations from the Court concerning the Defendant, the City of Edmonton’s response to encampments on public land.

In particular, the Coalition seeks the following declarations: a. that the Coalition be granted public interest standing in this Action; b. that pursuant to s 24(1) of the Charter or common law, the City of Edmonton’s policies and practices responding to

encampments on public land for the past 2 years to the present day violates ss 2(c), 2(d), 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter and is not justifiedby s 1; c. that several sections of the City of Edmonton Parkland Bylaw, Traffic Bylaw, and the Trespass to Premises Act, RSA 2000,c T-7 violate ss 2(c), 2(d), 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter, insofar as they prevent unhoused persons from staying in encampments on City-owned land when there is an inadequate or inaccessible number of shelter beds in the City of Edmonton; d. an interlocutory or permanent injunction preventing the City of Edmonton from closing encampments when there is aninadequate or inaccessible number of shelter beds in the City of Edmonton; and e. that the City of Edmonton breached the s 8 Charter rights of those individuals living in the encampment sites by disposingof their personal property during the City of Edmonton led clean-up of the sites. [3] By way of preliminary applications, the City of Edmonton seeks an order striking the Action, arguing that the Coalitionlacks either private or public interest standing.

Additionally, the City of Edmonton seeks to strike various grounds of the Coalition’sAmended Amended Statement of Claim, on the basis that there is an insufficient record to find s 8 Charter breaches and that s 24(1)Charter remedies are unavailable to parties claiming public interest standing. The City of Edmonton also challenges the admissibility ofseveral affidavits and the expertise qualifications of Drs. Sereda and Schwan. II. Position of the Parties A. Standing [4] The Coalition, primarily through the Affidavits of Sam Mason (Ms.

Mason), President of the Coalition, argues that theyshould be granted public interest standing in the present matter. [5] The Coalition takes the position that all other possible litigants face barriers to bringing a comparable litigation, they are theonly organization willing and able to bring the litigation, and if they are prevented from challenging the City of Edmonton’s response tothe encampments, the City of Edmonton’s bylaws and practices will become de facto immune from court oversight. [6] In support of this assertion, Ms.

Mason relies on the Coalition’s founding objectives as detailed in the Memorandum ofAssociation of Coalition for Justice and Human Rights Ltd. Ms. Mason also affirms, in an Affidavit dated August 25, 2023, that theCoalition’s Directors are experienced advocates on the issue of unhoused persons, that the Coalition has participated in several humanrights initiatives for unhoused persons in and around Edmonton, and that the Coalition is closely connected with unshelteredEdmontonians. [7] The City of Edmonton, relying on transcripts of questioning on Affidavits of Ms.

Mason and unhoused Edmontonians filedby the Coalition in support of their Application, argues that the Coalition should not be granted public interest standing. [8] The City of Edmonton takes the position that the evidence derived from the questioning demonstrates that the Coalition hasno direct involvement with the issue at stake, does not work with unhoused Edmontonians, has minimal, if any community recognition,does not conduct public outreach, and has no expertise in the matter at stake. [9] As the Coalition has not claimed private interest standing, only the issue of public interest standing will be addressed.

III. Legal Framework A. Challenging Standing [10] An application to strike pleadings due to a lack of standing is made pursuant to R 3.68(1) and R 3.68(2)(

d) of the AlbertaRules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010. For this type of application to strike, evidence may be considered, facts as pleaded are not presumedto be true, and the issue of standing does not attract the “plain and obvious” standard: Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v HerMajesty the Queen (Alberta), 2021 ABCA 416 at para 18, application for leave to appeal dismissed, (SCC). B.

Public Standing [11] To determine whether to grant public interest standing, the Court must weigh in a “liberal and generous manner” threecumulative factors: 1) whether the case raises a serious justiciable issue, 2) whether the party bringing the action has a real stake orgenuine interest in its outcome, and 3) whether the proposed suit is a reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court: Canada(Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 at paras 2, 35 and 36. [12] The Court must weigh these three factors, in light of the purposes of limiting standing and apply them in a way that bestserves those purposes.

In Downtown Eastside, at para 1, the Supreme Court noted three purposes of limiting standing: ...to ensure that courts do not become hopelessly overburdened with marginal or redundant cases, to screen out the mere “busybody”litigant, to ensure that courts have the benefit of contending points of view of those most directly affected and to ensure that courts playtheir proper role within our democratic system of government. [13] Courts must also consider the principles that justify granting standing, namely, giving effect to the principle of legality and

ensuring access to the courts and access to justice: British Columbia (Attorney General) v Council of Canadians with Disabilities, 2022SCC 27 at paras 33-35. 1) A Real Stake or Genuine Interest [14] As to what constitutes a real stake or genuine interest in the outcome of an action, in Downtown Eastside at para 43, the Courtnoted that this factor asks, “whether the plaintiff has a real stake in the proceedings or is engaged with the issues they raise.” The Courtthen made reference to several decisions to illustrate when a party has a real stake in the action or a genuine interest in its outcome:Finlay v Canada (Minister of Finance), (SCC), Minister of Justice (Can) v Borowski, (SCC), andCanadian Council of Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (SCC), [1992] 1 SCR 236. [15] In Finlay at para 34, the Court found that the plaintiff had a direct and personal interest as a person in need within thecontemplation of the Plan who also claimed to be prejudiced by the alleged provincial non-compliance with the federal cost-sharingpayments. [16] In Borowski at 597, the Court assessed the plaintiff’s engagement on the issue, found the possibility of a husband bringingproceedings to challenge the legislation impractical, in light of time constraints, and that the plaintiff had previously sought to have theissue determined by other means. [17] In Canadian Council of Churches at 240 and 254 (cited to SCR), though the plaintiff was ultimately denied public intereststanding, the Court found that the plaintiff had a genuine interest in the matter at stake.

Specifically, the plaintiff coordinated the work ofa broad group of member churches aimed at the protection and resettlement of refugees, commented on the development of refugeepolicy and procedures both in Canada and abroad, enjoyed the highest possible reputation, and demonstrated a real and continuinginterest in issues impacting refugees and immigrants. [18] As a further illustration, in Canadian Council for Refugees v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2017 FC1131 at paras 44, 46 and 47, the Federal Court found that constituents or stakeholders of the organizations were impacted by the subjectmatter, and the organizations were extensively involved in cases dealing with the matter, had a long and consistent history advocating forrights of refugees, and were widely recognized for their work in the area. 2) Reasonable and Effective Means [19] As to whether the proposed suit is a reasonable and effective means to bring the case, the Supreme Court of Canada inDowntown Eastside at para 51, provided an illustrative non-exhaustive list of matters for courts to consider, including: • The plaintiff’s capacity to bring forward the claim, considering their resources, expertise, and whether the issue will be presentedin a sufficiently concrete and well-developed factual setting. • Whether the case is of public interest and, in particular, whether public interest litigation may provide access to justice fordisadvantaged persons. • Whether realistic alternative means would provide a more efficient and effective use of judicial resources, and would present acontext more suitable for adversarial determination. • The potential impact the proceeding will have on the rights of others who are equally or more directly impacted by the matter.

See also Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para 55. IV. Application of the Framework A. Serious Justiciable Issue [20] Shelter is a necessity of life.

The State action impacting the existence of encampments populated by unhoused persons and theavailability of housing for those unhoused persons necessarily creates a serious justiciable issue. [21] The City of Edmonton does not challenge the assertion by the Coalition that the manner in which the City of Edmonton isresponding to the existence of encampments is a serious justiciable issue. [22] In the circumstance, as part of the cumulative analysis, this factor weighs in favour of granting the Coalition public intereststanding. B.

The Nature of the Plaintiff’s Interest [23] Turning to the nature of the Coalition’s interest and an assessment as to whether they have a real stake or genuine interest inits outcome. 1) Founding Objectives of the Coalition [24] Pursuant to the Memorandum of Association, the Coalition’s founding objectives are to establish:

a. a collaboration space on human rights advocacy, both individual and systemic, and use the tools of human rights to demand accountability from all levels of government; b. a learning and sharing network for knowledge and experience that supports capacity building in advocacy; c. a space to share resources and support; and d. an information gathering space to facilitate community-based research that supports advocacy efforts. [ 25 ] What follows are my findings regarding the Coalition’s actions concerning these objectives as they relate to the subject matter of encampments and the rights of unhoused persons. i.

Objective a [ 26 ] The factual underpinnings of this matter run in stark contrast to the matter of Council of Canadians with Disabilities where similar language related to the promotion of human rights and equality under the Charter is found. [ 27 ] In Council of Canadians with Disabilities , the Council of Canadians with Disabilities had a long history of engagement promoting fundamental equality and human rights of people with disabilities and their work was directed by and for people with disabilities (para 101).

As will be detailed below, the same is not true of the Coalition. [ 28 ] Additionally, the board of directors of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities was made up of mental health-related experts who were responsible for the litigation (para 101). This is not the case for the Coalition.

Though the Coalition’s board of directors hold expertise in a variety of fields, none have expertise relating to the rights of unhoused persons: Affidavit of Sam Mason, affirmed August 25, 2023. [ 29 ] Moreover, excluding the present litigation, the Coalition has not taken any steps to demand housing accountability from any level of government since 2020: Answers to Undertaking given during cross-examination of Sam Mason on October 11, 2023 (Answers of Sam Mason) Undertaking 4. Further, the steps taken in 2020 were few and as of the date of Ms.

Mason’s cross-examination, the Coalition did not have any working groups related to encampments or unhoused persons: Cross- examination on affidavit of Sam Mason (Cross-examination of Sam Mason) on October 11, 2023, p 10, line 25 to p 11, line 3 . ii. Objective b [ 30 ] Though the Coalition board members come together and learn from each other, they have not produced any publications for the public for at least the past 2 years and the Coalition does not believe that it is their role to conduct public outreach: Cross- examination of Sam Mason, p 22, lines 15-20, p 25, lines 9-17, and p 57, lines 6-12 . iii.

Objective c [ 31 ] The Coalition conducted internal table meetings approximately every 6 weeks to discuss their working groups regarding disabled youth, prison advocacy, and forming a working group on policing: Cross - examination of Sam Mason, p 26, lines 2-23 . iv. Objective d [ 32 ] The Coalition could not identify any formal research projects and confirmed that it had no records of research pertaining to unhoused persons: Cross-examination of Sam Mason, p 10, line 24 to p 11, line 3 and p 27, lines 15-23 and Answers of Sam Mason, Undertaking 5 . C.

Human Rights Initiatives for Unhoused Persons [ 33 ] Turning to the Coalition’s involvement in human rights initiatives for unhoused persons, Ms. Mason affirmed the following: a. They partnered with the John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights (JHCP) and other organizations in operating the Stride Advocacy project, training human rights volunteer advocates and initiating human rights advocacy projects. Ms. Mason further referenced a recent project where the Coalition assisted in making eight human rights complaints for people displaced from encampments in Wetaskiwin. b.

They partnered with an Indigenous-led community outreach organization called Nekem that initiated and operated the 2020 Old Strathcona “Peace Camp”, and have been supporting Nekem in its subsequent projects. c. They conducted intakes for possible human rights complaints at the Old Strathcona Peace Camp encampment. d. They partnered with and supported other organisations that distribute Narcan and other essentials to people living in encampments in Edmonton. e.

They made informal complaints to Hope Mission in Edmonton in response to specific negative experiences unhoused Edmontonians have had at the emergency shelter. f. They helped establish chapters of the Bear Clan Patrol (now Bear Claw Beaver Hills House) community outreach organization in Edmonton and Lethbridge.

g. They advocated for accessibility at the temporary EXPO Centre emergency shelter in 2020. h. They established and operated a Facebook group in 2020 during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic where Edmontonians could post requests for help, or volunteer to help others. i. They supported Edmontonians facing residential tenancy evictions. j. They financially supported the Elizabeth Fry Society’s bail fund. k.

They served and advocated for low-income people involved in the criminal legal system, most of whom are unhoused. [ 34 ] As with the Coalition’s founding objectives, I will review each of these initiatives in turn. i. Initiative a [ 35 ] The Coalition has never filed any human rights complaints in Edmonton.

As to filing human rights complaints in Wetaskiwin, the Coalition assisted the JHCP Stride Advocacy project with filing the complaints, an organization with significantly more resources and labour capital than the Coalition: Answers of Sam Mason, Undertaking 8 ; and Cross-examination of Sam Mason, p 44, lines 9-25 . On the facts before me, I have no evidence that the Coalition took on a leadership role in filing the Wetaskiwin human rights complaints. ii.

Initiative b [ 36 ] As to Nekem’s relationship with the Coalition, none of the leaders of the Nekem organization were members of the Coalition: Answers of Sam Mason, Undertaking 9 . [ 37 ] Regarding the operation of the “Peace Camp”, Ms. Mason mainly conducted manual labour and assisted with fundraising, and other members of the Coalition eventually assisted with donation drop-offs. However, Ms. Mason could not confirm that the Coalition was ever formally involved: Cross-examination of Sam Mason, p 77, line 15 to p 78, line 21 . iii.

Initiative c [ 38 ] The Coalition did not file any human rights complaints with respect to the Old Strathcona Peace Camp encampment: Cross- examination of Sam Mason, p 48, line 24 to p 49, line 5 . iv. Initiative d [ 39 ] In support of the Bear Claw Beaver Hills House, the Coalition donated $500 in 2023 and $2,000 in 2022. The Coalition did not provide any funding to Nekem: Cross-examination of Sam Mason, p 50, lines 7-19; Affidavit of Judith Gale, affirmed November 23, 2023; and Answers of Sam Mason, Undertaking 10 . v.

Initiative e [ 40 ] The Coalition sent a single letter dated June 11, 2020, for which they received no response: Cross-examination of Sam Mason, p 51, line 25 to p 52, line 11; and Answers of Sam Mason, Undertaking 11 . vi. Initiative f [ 41 ] Financial assistance for establishing the Bear Claw Beaver Hills House was provided by Renée Vaugeois in her capacity as the Executive Director of the JHCP: Cross-examination of Sam Mason, p 51, lines 9-24 . vii. Initiative g [ 42 ] The Coalition cosigned, with 10 other organizations, a single letter dated August 1, 2020: Answers of Sam Mason, Undertaking 12 . viii.

Initiative h [ 43 ] The Facebook page established by the Coalition was a response to the pandemic, it closed in either 2021 or 2022. While some unhoused persons may have accessed the page, it was not established to address housing or the rights of unhoused persons: Cross- examination of Sam Mason, p 55, lines 18-25 and p 56, line 9 . ix. Initiative i [ 44 ] The Coalition provided its members with training on residential tenancy evictions but does not conduct public outreach: Cross-examination of Sam Mason, p 56, lines 15-24 and p 57, lines 11-12 . x.

Initiative j [ 45 ] The Coalition considered supporting the Elizabeth Fry Society’s bail fund but did not actually donate any money: Answers of Sam Mason, Undertaking 13 .

xi. Initiative k [ 46 ] This work is completed by Mark Cherrington, a board member of the Coalition and an experienced youth worker and social justice advocate in the context of the criminal justice system. Though Mr. Cherrington has significant experience working with low- income persons involved in the criminal justice system, there is no evidence before me that most of those persons are unhoused: Cross- examination of Sam Mason, p 59, lines 11-21; and Affidavit of Sam Mason, affirmed August 25, 2023 . D.

Conclusion as to the Nature of the Plaintiff’s Interest [ 47 ] The Coalition is a young organization ( Cross-examination of Sam Mason, p 25, lines 9-18 ) that does not have a long or consistent history advocating for the rights of unhoused persons and does not possess a reputation as an advocate for unhoused persons. [ 48 ] Regarding the reputation of the Coalition, the cross-examination of the unhoused affiants demonstrates that none of the affiants had any prior relationship or familiarity with the Coalition prior to signing their respective affidavits in support of this matter: Cross-examination of Lauren Rivard, dated September 28, 2023, pp 8-9; Cross-examination of Raymond Neal Shirt-Yellowbird, dated September 27, 2023, pp 8-10; Cross-examination of Joshua Bell, dated September 27, 2023, pp 6-8; and Cross-examination of Russell Francis Cardinal, dated September 27, 2023, pp 9-11 . [ 49 ] Though one affiant had frequent dealings with Coalition member Judith Gale, it was in Ms.

Gale’s capacity as a member of the Bear Claw Beaver Hills House and not as a member of the Coalition: Cross-examination of Lisa Wemp, dated September 28, 2023, pp 10-11 . [ 50 ] In terms of litigation experience, this is the first housing-related litigation launched by the Coalition ( Cross-examination of Sam Mason, p 21, lines 12-15 ) and their housing-specific advocacy appears to be limited to two letters written in 2020. [ 51 ] Notwithstanding that one of the Coalition’s objectives is to demand accountability from all levels of government in the context of human rights, upon review of the evidence before this Court, the Coalition does not in fact bear any of the hallmarks of a party with a real stake or genuine interest in the outcome. [ 52 ] In assessing whether to grant public interest standing, as part of the cumulative analysis, this factor weighs heavily against granting the Coalition standing.

E.

Reasonable and Effective Means of Bringing the Issue before the Court [ 53 ] Turning now to whether this litigation is a reasonable and effective means of bringing the issue before the Court. 1) The Plaintiff’s Capacity to bring the Matter Forward [ 54 ] Though the Coalition has retained capable counsel willing to work pro bono , the Coalition itself does not possess any expertise on the issue of unhoused persons. [ 55 ] The members of the Coalition’s board of directors hold expertise in several fields, including disability rights, women in the criminal justice system, the criminal justice system generally, the child welfare system, women’s rights and Indigenous rights.

These directors are also associated with a number of well-recognized community organizations, including the JHCP, the Elizabeth Fry Society of Northern Alberta, and Native Counselling Services of Alberta. [ 56 ] While these individuals and organizations undoubtedly have some interactions with unhoused persons, the evidence before this Court is that none of their objectives or expertise are focused on assisting or advocating for unhoused persons: Affidavit of Sam Mason, affirmed August 25, 2023 and Cross-examination of Sam Mason, p 11, lines 11-22 . [ 57 ] I also accept the City of Edmonton’s position that the Coalition lacks the financial resources to satisfy its undertaking as to damages.

Though the Coalition has secured counsel willing to work pro bono , the Coalition has no significant assets, has loose rules around who is a member and the President of the Coalition herself has not paid membership dues for the past 3 years: Answers of Sam Mason, Undertaking 18 and Cross-examination of Sam Mason, p 9, lines 21-22 and p 19, lines 1-6 and 19-20 .

While the Coalition correctly argues that courts have discretion to dispense with the need to provide an undertaking for damages, the Coalition has already signed an undertaking as to damages rendering this argument moot. [ 58 ] Finally, I do not find that the Coalition can present a well-developed factual setting. The Coalition has collected evidence from unhoused persons and filed expert affidavits: Affidavit of Sam Mason, affirmed August 25, 2023 .

However, in addition to and considering my findings above regarding the Coalition’s lack of history or reputation advocating for the rights of unhoused persons, this collection of information in and of itself is insufficient to prove that the Coalition has the necessary knowledge or experience to appreciate what information and what evidence needs to be presented before the Court to establish a well-developed factual setting to permit an appropriate adjudication of the matter. F.

Whether the Case is of Public Interest [ 59 ] Ensuring that the rights of unhoused persons in Edmonton are protected falls squarely within the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance that courts should consider the fact that public interest litigation may provide access to disadvantaged persons in society. [ 60 ] Though the Supreme Court of Canada has cautioned against granting public interest standing for the sole purpose of allowing an otherwise unaffected group to take up a noble cause ( Downtown Eastside at para 51), that this matter has drawn such broad public

interest, I find that this factor weighs in favour of granting the Coalition public interest standing as part of the cumulative analysis. G. Whether there are Alternative Means [61] I agree with the Coalition that the existence of unhoused Edmontonians as possible Plaintiffs does not inevitably act to negatethe Coalition’s request for public interest standing.

I also accept the Coalition’s argument that unhoused persons would face severalbarriers if they were required to pursue litigation in their own names. [62] Under this criterion, the Coalition also argues that due to funding models between the City of Edmonton and organizationsworking with unhoused persons, there is a pervasive fear that if an organization took on the role of lead plaintiff, the City of Edmontonmight cut their funding: Affidavit of Sam Mason, affirmed December 14, 2023. [63] Ms.

Mason’s opinion on this issue is unsupported by any evidence and is in fact contradicted by the Affidavit of the ChiefExecutive Officer of Homeward Trust Edmonton.

Homeward Trust is a non-profit society that contracts with over 60 social serviceagencies to deliver a range of programs to ensure “homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurring.” [64] Homeward Trust opposes the application not out of fear of losing funding, but on the basis that it will result in irreparableharm and frustrate efforts to connect unsheltered community members to housing, it will erode the focus and adaptive efforts to managecommunity impacts and safety, it will unintentionally divert processes from strengthening the current housing response, and it willnormalize the existence of encampments exacerbating the harm suffered by unhoused persons: Affidavit of Susan McGee, swornNovember 7, 2023. [65] The Coalition further argues that the fact that no other organization has come forward to act as a lead plaintiff should weighin favour of granting public interest standing. [66] This argument runs contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada’s caution against granting public interest standing where personswith a more direct and personal stake have deliberately refrained from acting: Downtown Eastside at para 51. [67] While preventing the immunization of State action weighs heavily in favour of granting public interest standing (DemocracyWatch v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 208 at para 9), that the approximately 60 social service agencies that deliver services tounhoused persons have decided not to act may to the contrary be evidence that the Coalition should not be granted public intereststanding in a matter in which they have little experience: Affidavit of Susan McGee, sworn November 7, 2023.

H. The Potential Impact of the Proceedings on Others [68] Given the Coalition’s lack of expertise and inexperience advocating for and working with unhoused persons, I am left withserious concerns that this matter may prejudice subsequent challenges by persons with “specific and factually established complaints”:Danson v Ontario (Attorney General), (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 1086 at 1093. [69] To be explicit, the fact that Homeward Trust opposes the Application does not equate to a finding that the Coalition’s requestfor public interest standing ought to fail.

Homeward Trust’s opinion may be but one of many varying perspectives. [70] However, their opposition must be considered when assessing the impact of these proceedings on parties who aresignificantly more directly affected and who have a distinct perspective given their established history of working with the unhousedpopulation: Downtown Eastside at para 51. I.

Conclusion on whether this Matter is a Reasonable and Effective Means ofbringing the Issue before the Court [71] As succinctly stated by the Supreme Court of Canada, “Public interest standing provides an avenue to litigate the legality ofgovernment action in spite of social, economic or psychological barriers to access which may preclude individuals from pursuing theirlegal rights”: Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para 36. [72] This Court recognizes the difficulties faced by unhoused persons, the need to ensure that their voices are heard and amplified,and disagrees with the City of Edmonton’s position that an individual with private standing is needed to mount this challenge.

But thecircumstances of this matter and the evidence before this Court are insufficient to find that the Coalition ought to be granted publicinterest standing: Thorson v Attorney General of Canada, at 161 (SCC). See also B.C./Yukon Association of Drug WarSurvivors v Abbotsford (City), 2014 BCSC 1817. [73] In assessing whether to grant public interest standing, as part of the cumulative analysis this factor does not weigh in favour ofgranting the Coalition standing. V.

Conclusion [74] After weighing the three cumulative factors in consideration of my findings, I am denying the Coalition for Justice andHuman Rights request for public interest standing. [75] The City of Edmonton’s Application to strike the Coalition’s action is granted. [76] As this ruling is dispositive of this matter, I make no comment and provide no findings or judgment on the other outstanding

preliminary issues or the substantive Application. Heard on the 10 th and 11 th days of January, 2024. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 16 th day of January, 2024. J.D. Martin J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Avnish Nanda and Anna Lund Nanda & Company Chris Wiebe Engel Law Office for the Plaintiff Michael Gunther, Joanne Cave and Megan Kyriacou City of Edmonton Legal Services for the Defendant Jeffrey Westman and Denise Brunsdon Bennett Jones LLP for the Intervener