Court of Queen s Bench of Alberta

Transcription

1 Court of Queen s Bench of Alberta Citation: John Measor v General Faculties Council Student Academic Appeals Committee, 2018 ABQB 662 Date: Docket: Registry: Calgary Between: John Measor - and - Applicant General Faculties Council Student Academic Appeals Committee, Board of Governors Student Discipline Appeal Committee and University of Calgary Respondents Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice R.A. Neufeld Introduction [1] In 2003, John Measor was awarded a Master of Arts degree by the University of Calgary ( University or the U of C ). His political science thesis was entitled Canada and the Imposition of Sanctions on Iraq: [2] Prior to the scheduled defence, a member of the four-person thesis examination committee raised a concern regarding plagiarism in the thesis provided for advance review. The Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies directed that Mr. Measor remove the plagiarism and

2 Page: 2 postponed the thesis defence by two weeks to allow for that. A meeting was held between Mr. Measor and the concerned committee member to discuss the situation. Mr. Measor revised the thesis and circulated it to the committee for review prior to its successful defence in September [3] Approximately six weeks later, Mr. Measor submitted a finalized version of the thesis to the University for archiving and he was awarded his degree in [4] Ten years later, another Canadian university asked the University for the thesis. The U of C provided a copy, and the other university later raised a concern that the thesis contained plagiarism. The U of C investigated. Two of its professors reviewed the thesis housed in its archives, substantiating the concern. [5] There followed three hearings over a period of three to four years. The first was by a special ad hoc committee (the Special Committee ) formed to review the allegation and to hear from both the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Mr. Measor. The second was by the General Faculties Council Student Academic Appeals Committee (the Appeal Committee ). It heard Mr. Measor s appeal from the Special Committee s finding of plagiarism and recommendation that his Master s Degree be rescinded. The third was by the Board of Governors Student Discipline Appeals Committee (the Board of Governors ), which heard Mr. Measor s appeal from the Appeal Committee. At each stage Mr. Measor was represented by counsel, and at each stage he was unsuccessful. [6] Ultimately, the Provost of the U of C demanded that Mr. Measor return his MA parchment, and the Registrar of the University rescinded his degree. The Issues [7] Mr. Measor applies for judicial review. He asks that the Court grant an order quashing or declaring invalid and setting aside the decisions of each of the three tribunals involved. [8] He argues that three errors were made. First, the U of C had no statutory authority to rescind a degree already granted to a student. Second, the three tribunals had no jurisdiction to consider the alleged plagiarism, as the Dean of Faculty of Graduate Studies and the thesis examination committee in 2002 had already decided the matter, rendering the tribunals functus officio or estopped from deciding the issue again some ten years later. Third, the procedures employed, particularly by the Special Committee, were unfair. [9] I have concluded that the University was entitled to rescind the degree once it found that the thesis included substantial plagiarism, because the power to award degrees necessarily implies the power of rescission. The doctrines of functus officio and issue estoppel do not deprive the University of jurisdiction because the more recent allegations are not the same as those dealt with in I have also decided that procedural fairness was not denied. The three levels of hearing afforded to Mr. Measor, while not perfect, provided him with a level of procedural fairness that was proportionate to the seriousness of the allegations against him. Issue 1: Statutory Authority to Rescind Degrees [10] The applicant argues that the legislation governing post-secondary institutions does not confer power upon a university to rescind degrees. The Post-Secondary Learning Act, SA 2003,

3 Page: 3 c19.5 contains no such power, and nor did the Faculty of Graduate Studies Calendar, which provides for penalization (including expulsion) of students, but not rescission of degrees held by former students. [11] The U of C agrees that there is no express power to rescind a degree previously granted. It argues that such a power is implicit and one that is essential to maintain the academic integrity of a university. [12] Generally, enabling legislation explicitly defines the powers of statutorily created decision-makers and institutions such as universities. However, some powers arise by necessary implication from the wording of the act, its structure, and its purpose: Bell Canada v Canada (Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission), [1989] 1 SCR 1722 at Thus, the powers of a university include not only those expressly granted by the Post- Secondary Learning Act, but all powers necessarily implied for the achievement of the university s statutory mandate: ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd v Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board), 2005 SCC 4 at para 51. When applying this doctrine, courts must be careful to neither unduly broaden the powers of administrative bodies, nor to sterilize those powers through an overly restrictive interpretation: Bell Canada at 1756; ATCO Gas at para 50. [13] Denying the University the power to revoke a degree based on a subsequent finding of academic dishonesty would sterilize its ability to bestow meaningful academic credentials and maintain institutional integrity. Thus, the University is correct in arguing that the powers granted under section 29 of the Post-Secondary Learning Act to grant degrees necessarily imply an attendant power to revoke those same degrees. Obviously, such powers should be used sparingly, and be accompanied by procedural fairness and good faith. But the legislature must have intended that a University can protect its institutional integrity when it comes to light that a student cheated to receive a degree, and in so doing can protect the interests of its students, graduates, and the community it serves. [14] Neither party was able to refer the Court to any Canadian case law on this point. The issue of rescission has, however, been considered as early as 1724 in the United Kingdom (The King v University of Cambridge, 8 Mod Rep 148). In that case, the Court of King s Bench acknowledged that the University of Cambridge had the right to award and degrade (ie: rescind) degrees by virtue of the Charter granted to it by Queen Elizabeth. However, the right to do so was subject to judicial review and must be exercised in accordance with the rules of natural justice. [15] The right to rescind degrees has been discussed more recently by United States courts. For example, in Walliga v Board of Trustees of Kent State University the Ohio Supreme Court explained why the power to grant degrees necessarily includes a power of revocation in these terms: Academic degrees are a university s certification to the world at large of the recipient s educational achievement and fulfillment of the institution s standards. To hold that a university may never withdraw a degree, effectively requires the university to continue making a false certification to the public at large of the accomplishment of persons who in fact lack the very qualifications that are certified. Such a holding would undermine public confidence in the integrity of degrees, call academic standards into question, and harm those who rely on the certification which the degree represents. (488 NE 2d 850 (Ohio 1986)).

4 Page: 4 (See also Mary Ann Connell, The Right of Educational Institutions to Withhold or Revoke Academic Degrees (Paper delivered at the Twenty-Sixth Annual National Conference on Law and Higher Education, Stetson University College of Law, 21 February 2005 (unpublished, archived on-line by Stetson University) [16] Canadian universities, such as the U of C, are in a position no different than their American counterparts. They too are entitled to preserve the integrity of their institution by revoking degrees that have been obtained through cheating. The power to grant degrees and to generally manage and operate a university necessarily implies a power of rescission. Issue 2: Finality [17] The applicant frames his finality argument in two ways. First, he relies on the doctrine of functus officio in arguing that once it was decided by the 2002 thesis examination committee that his thesis was free of unacceptable plagiarism, the jurisdiction of the University to adjudicate that issue was spent. Second, he argues that issue estoppel applies to preclude re-litigation of a matter already decided. [18] The University argues that neither functus officio nor issue estoppel apply in this case. It says that the plagiarism addressed by the Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies and the thesis examination committee in 2002 was not necessarily the same as the plagiarism alleged in the thesis housed in the University archives in The University argues that this issue of fact was considered by the Special Committee and thereafter on appeal. Once it was determined that the archived version of the thesis contained plagiarized passages that were different than those identified and addressed in 2002, the matters being dealt with were fundamentally different. [19] The Supreme Court of Canada established the test for issue estoppel in the administrative law context in Danyluk v Ainsworth Technologies Inc, 2001 SCC 44 at para 25. The preconditions for the operation of issue estoppel are: 1. The same question has been previously decided; 2. The judicial decision addressing the same question was final; and 3. The parties to the judicial decision are the same persons as the parties in the proceeding where estoppel is raised. [20] I doubt that the activities of Dean Mansell and the thesis examination committee in 2002 can properly be characterized as judicial in nature, so as to engage the doctrine of issue estoppel. A concern was raised by a committee member regarding potential plagiarism, Dean Mansell intervened to direct its resolution, and the thesis examination committee proceeded with its academic duties. It can be surmised that the committee was satisfied that the thesis was free of plagiarism in fulfilling its academic duties, but to say that it made a final, judicial decision on that issue is in my view a considerable stretch. [21] More importantly, I agree with the University that while the same general concern was raised in 2002 (plagiarism), the conduct underlying that concern was not necessarily the same. For example, if Mr. Measor did not in fact completely remove plagiarism from his thesis before defending it in 2002, the offensive conduct involved would have included not only plagiarism but deception of the thesis examination committee and disregard for the directions of the Dean.

5 Page: 5 [22] Accordingly, I find that the doctrine of issue estoppel has no application here. [23] The doctrine of functus officio states that a final decision cannot be reopened or reconsidered except in special circumstances: In Re St Nazaire Co, (1879) 12 Ch D 88. It applies to both courts and administrative tribunals, although it is recognized that administrative decisions require flexible application of the doctrine: Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 SCR 848 at 862. [24] I find that the doctrine of functus officio did not preclude the University from investigating and acting upon the 2013 plagiarism allegation. If a university has the power to rescind a degree based on evidence of misconduct that was unknown to it when the degree was granted, it cannot be said to be functus officio in exercising that power. Put simply, the power to rescind cannot be said to have been spent, as it has never before been exercised. [25] I therefore reject the Applicant s position regarding the jurisdiction of the University to revoke his degree as a matter of statutory interpretation or under the doctrines of functus officio and issue estoppel. The remaining question for determination, then is whether in deciding that Mr. Measor s final Master s thesis contained plagiarism beyond that initially detected by a thesis defence committee member, the University complied with the requirement for procedural fairness. [26] I turn to that next. Issue 3: Procedural Fairness A. General Principles [27] The scope and nature of the duty of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making is dependent on the facts of each case. In Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [1999] 2 SCR 817, the Supreme Court of Canada made that proposition clear, and provided guidance as to the considerations that determine the content of procedural fairness. These include the nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it; the nature of the statutory scheme; the importance of the decision to the individuals involved; the legitimate expectations of the parties; and the choice of procedures made by the agency itself. [28] Having regard to these factors, I am satisfied that the University, as an institution, owed Mr. Measor a high degree of procedural fairness. [29] The decisions required were essentially two-fold: to determine whether Mr. Measor had committed plagiarism that went undetected by his thesis defence committee; and to determine whether the penalty for such plagiarism should be rescission of his Master s degree. Both decisions had obvious and substantial consequences for Mr. Measor s reputation and career prospects. [30] The aged nature of the allegations added complexity to the provision of procedural fairness. From the outset it was, or ought to have been, known by the University that fair adjudication of these issues would be made more difficult by the passage of time. As the matter progressed, and it became known that this was not the first plagiarism accusation made against Mr. Measor; that his original thesis had been revised to address a plagiarism concern; and that there may have been an error in the archiving process, the issues involved became even more complex.

6 Page: 6 B. Process used to investigate and adjudicate the issue [31] The plagiarism complaint giving rise to these proceedings originated in Saint Mary s University in Halifax requested a copy of Mr. Measor s Master s thesis. No hard copy exists in the U of C archives, as it was apparently destroyed in 2010 when it was digitized. A digitized version was sent to Saint Mary s University. [32] Saint Mary s University ran the thesis through a plagiarism detection software program and reported to the U of C that it contained plagiarism. [33] In response, the U of C s Faculty of Graduate Studies had two of its professors examine the thesis. They reported that it contained substantial plagiarism. [34] As this was a novel situation, the University decided to appoint the Special Committee to adjudicate the plagiarism issue and recommend penalties (if any). Mr. Measor was advised of this and retained counsel. [35] The Committee was advised by internal U of C counsel, who assisted in developing a hearing procedure and dealt with counsel for Mr. Measor in respect of procedural and scheduling issues. Its hearing was held in November 2015, with a written decision issued in June The Faculty of Graduates Studies actively participated in the hearing and was represented by outside counsel. The Special Committee concluded that Mr. Measor plagiarized portions of the thesis and recommended rescission of his degree. [36] Mr. Measor then had an opportunity to appeal both aspects of the decision. A hearing was held by the Appeal Committee on October 26, Again, Mr. Measor was represented by counsel and had the opportunity to make submissions regarding the substance of the plagiarism matter and the findings of the Special Committee. The Appeal Committee issued a written decision dismissing Mr. Measor s appeal on November 15, [37] A further opportunity to be heard was provided by the University Board of Governors sitting on appeal from the Appeal Committee. That hearing took place in February [38] The Board of Governors written decision was released on February 24, It provided a thorough review of the history of the matter and an extensive discussion of the legal issues that Mr. Measor raised. The latter included many of the arguments now made by Mr. Measor in seeking judicial review. C. Procedural Fairness Assessment [39] Litigants before administration tribunals, like litigants before courts, are not entitled to a fair result. Fairness of result ordinarily lies in the eyes of the beholder and depends on whether the beholder was successful. They are, however, entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard before an unbiased decision maker. 1. Standard of Review [40] Application of the Dunsmuir standard of review analysis to procedural fairness has given rise to differing approaches. However in 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that the standard of review on procedural fairness is correctness: Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79. This is logical, as it is often observed that a procedural fairness determination is binary in nature either a procedure is fair, or it is not.

7 Page: 7 [41] What complicates the analysis is that procedural fairness is in itself a fluid concept. Its constituent elements vary as per the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker. That direction requires a reviewing Court to consider elements of reasonableness in determining whether the procedures used by a tribunal were fair, and hence correct. In the result, while the standard of review is correctness, reasonableness and common sense are applied in assessing whether that standard has been met. [42] For example, administrative tribunals are not required to adopt court-like procedures in conducting a hearing. Nor are they required to adopt pre-hearing discovery or document production processes akin to those found in the Rules of Court. Imperfections in process are acceptable and to be expected, so long as the process, taken as a whole, affords a reasonable opportunity to be heard. 2. The Applicant s Complaints [43] Mr. Measor contends that the process used by the University as a whole, and by the Special Committee in particular, was unfair. [44] At the Special Committee level, Mr. Measor says that the hearing was delayed (by almost 2 years); that the hearing itself was disorganized, with only a telephone recording made for transcription; that Associate Dean Hughes improperly participated in a prosecutorial role; and that the committee did not hear from potentially important witnesses. On the latter point, he says that the Committee should have heard evidence from the Dean of Faculty of Graduate Studies (Dr. Mansell) and members of Mr. Measor s thesis examination committee before deciding whether the archived thesis was, in fact, the thesis actually reviewed by the thesis defence committee in September of Mr. Measor describes the Special Committee proceedings as a fiasco and says that its decision was not based on reliable, tested evidence. [45] The University argues the complaints of procedural unfairness are unfounded and that the applicant s attack on the result of the Special Committee hearing, and the two subsequent appeals, is reviewable if at all, on a reasonableness standard per Dunsmuir: Canadian Forest Products Ltd v Alberta (Minister of Environment and Parks), 2016 ABQB 628 at paras 53, 71. In cases involving student discipline, it says, considerable deference must be given: L (SD) v University of Alberta, 2012 ABQB 244 at para Assessment (the structure) [46] In considering the fairness of the procedure used by the University, it is appropriate to commence with a review of how the process was structured. [47] The University assigned the plagiarism concern received by the U of C in 2013 to two University professors for review. There is nothing unfair with such an initial review and, indeed, there is much to be said for it as a mechanism for screening out a potentially unmeritorious complaint. [48] Once substantiated, the University could have in theory proceeded directly to consideration of penalties, including rescission of Mr. Measor s degree. It did not do so. Instead, the University appointed a Special Committee resourced with legal counsel, who liaised with Mr. Measor s counsel on matters such as hearing procedures and timing. [49] The process included not one, but two levels of appeals. No restrictions were placed on the arguments that Mr. Measor could advance on appeal, although at the Board of Governors

8 Page: 8 level it was made clear that the appeal was to be based on the record below. From a structural perspective, I do not see any inadequacy in the process that would support a procedural unfairness complaint. In the circumstances, a high degree of procedural fairness was required, and the process used was more than adequate. The only substantive question is whether the Special Committee failed to do its part. 4. The Special Committee Process [50] The applicant argues that there was an inordinate delay in setting the plagiarism allegation down for a hearing, and once the hearing did proceed, it did so without adequate prehearing disclosure and without necessary witnesses. [51] I do not consider the pre-hearing delay to be such that procedural fairness was compromised. Much of the delay was created by the need to develop a hearing process and schedule that would be fair to Mr. Measor, including accommodating his counsel s schedule. This required a number of adjournments. Moreover, the faculty s position was disclosed well in advanced of the hearing. [52] At the hearing, the Faculty of Graduate Studies produced the two professors who had reviewed the archived thesis. They gave testimony and were subject to cross-examination. The faculty also presented evidence through Associate Dean Hughes and a university archivist dealing with Mr. Measor s contention that an incorrect version of the thesis had been archived. [53] Mr. Measor testified on his own behalf and called one additional witness his 2002 thesis supervisor, Professor Ismael. Mr. Measor filed his pre-hearing submission on the late afternoon of Friday, November 20, 2014, with the hearing commencing on the following Monday morning. In that submission, he disclosed that he had been accused of plagiarism in August 2002 and had corrected that plagiarism prior to defending a revised version of the thesis on September 19, The Faculty was unaware of the 2002 allegations and resolution prior to these submissions. [54] In result, neither Mr. Measor nor the Faculty produced, or endeavored to have produced, as witnesses any of the thesis examination committee members, or Dean Mansell. [55] In retrospect, it appears that the Special Committee process may have benefited from additional witnesses especially Dr. Mansell (Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies in ) and the members of Mr. Measor s thesis examination committee. These individuals might have been able to shed additional light on what turned out to be a critical issue: the source of the archived thesis. For example, it is possible that even after all of those years, Dr. Barry may have been able to testify as to whether the archived thesis contained the same plagiarism as he had originally detected, or new and substantial plagiarism as ultimately found by the Special Committee. Without such direct evidence, the Committee was left to decide that issue based on circumstantial evidence. [56] In assessing the fairness of the Special Committee s hearing process in these somewhat unusual circumstances, it is necessary to return to first principles. The right to procedural fairness is opportunity-based. A person who stands to be adversely affected by an administrative decision-maker is entitled to a fair opportunity to be heard. That being said, a decision-maker is not obliged to make the person s case for him or her. Nor is it required to cease the hearing process if it becomes apparent to the tribunal that other witnesses might be helpful even though neither party has taken steps to secure their attendance or requested an adjournment.

9 Page: 9 [57] In this case, Mr. Measor's counsel had advised the University (through its internal counsel) over a year before the hearing that he believed that the archived thesis was different than the one actually defended. However, it was not until the last minute that Mr. Measor disclosed that he had been accused of plagiarism in 2002 and had revised his thesis at the direction of Dean Mansell prior to its defence. At no point in the two years or so leading up to the Special Committee hearing did counsel for Mr. Measor advise University counsel that attendance by Dr. Mansell or members of the thesis defence committee was necessary. Nor does it appear that Mr. Measor made any effort to produce such witnesses on his own and he did not seek an adjournment for that purpose. [58] Moreover, during cross-examination at the hearing, Mr. Measor added to the confusion by denying any authorship of the archived thesis, testifying that the plagiarism initially flagged by the thesis defence committee was much more limited than that contained in the archived version, and implying that an unknown person was responsible for the preparation and archiving of a plagiarized paper. The Special Committee was left to consider all of the evidence before it and draw conclusions as to whether the archived and admittedly plagiarized version of the thesis was in fact different than the one Mr. Measor defended. It did so and made the following finding: Given that Mr. Measor only had six days to make revisions before having to resubmit his thesis to the Examination Committee, Mr. Measor likely only removed the plagiarized portions detected by Dr. Barry. Therefore, the plagiarized material detected by Saint Mary s University (Tab 2, FGS-12), and later confirmed by Dr. Konnert and Dr. Moore (Tab 3, FGS-14), were instances of plagiarism not originally detected by Dr. Barry or the rest of the Examination Committee. [59] In my view, the process used by the Special Committee to reach this conclusion was procedurally fair. Mr. Measor s eleventh hour disclosure of the initial plagiarism concern and his own failure to secure the attendance of material witnesses cannot be visited on the Special Committee as evidence of an unfair process. The process used here provided a fair opportunity to present evidence in documentary form and through testimony. That is all that procedural fairness requires. [60] Mr. Measor also argues that the hearing transcripts were inadequate. The process used to create a hearing transcript (an audio phone recording followed by transcription by a Court reporter) was less than ideal. The transcripts contain a number of inaudible statements, and unidentified speakers, but do provide a surprisingly complete verbatim transcript, given the manner in which the recording was made. There was no procedural unfairness here. [61] Another complaint is that the Special Committee should not have allowed the Associate Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies to take an active role in arguing that plagiarism had taken place. I find nothing wrong with participation in the hearing by Associate Dean Hughes. In a process such as this, it is necessary for the person under investigation to have an opportunity to be heard, but it is also important for the purpose of decision-making for the opposing position to be disclosed, defended, and subject to critique. There was nothing wrong with Associate Dean Hughes taking on that role, and a fair opportunity was provided to Mr. Measor to challenge Dr. Hughes on cross-examination and argument regarding the positions she advanced.

10 Page: The Appeals [62] Having been unsuccessful before the Special Committee, Mr. Measor availed himself of two subsequent appeal opportunities. Before the Appeal Committee, he conceded that the archived version of his thesis was indeed authored by him, but said that it was not the version that was presented to and defended before his thesis examination committee. That version, he said, was completely different. He was not able to provide the complete thesis, but had been able to retrieve what he claimed to be the Introduction and Conclusion of the defended thesis (which had been entered as an exhibit before the Special Committee). [63] The Appeal Committee considered the submissions of Mr. Measor and the Faculty of Graduate Studies. It concluded that the Special Committee had decided that issue correctly, focusing its decision on the factual determination by the Special Committee that the archived version of the thesis was written by Mr. Measor and contained substantial amounts of plagiarized material that had been undetected by the thesis defence committee. The Appeal Committee agreed with the Special Committee, noting in particular the date, signatories, font size, and formatting of the archived thesis, all of which supported the Special Committee s decision. [64] At the Board of Governors level, Mr. Measor was provided an opportunity to challenge the reasoning of the two tribunals below. He also provided arguments similar to those made before me on the jurisdictional and procedural fairness matters. The Board of Governors rendered a detailed and well-reasoned decision addressing the procedural history of the matter, the substance of the decisions made below, and the legal arguments advanced before it. [65] Mr. Measor does not contend that the Appeal Committee and the Board of Governors hearings were procedurally unfair but rather that they both erred by failing to correct the flawed process used by the Special Committee and that they exceeded their jurisdiction in rescinding the degree. Having dealt with these arguments earlier, there is no need for me to review them again here. [66] I must observe, however, that it seems to me that Mr. Measor s primary difficulty at each level (including the two appeals) was not the procedure used but rather a basic credibility problem of his own making. Not only was he admitting on appeal to plagiarism in his original draft thesis, but he was also presenting a fundamentally different version of events than those he described before the Special Committee. And in the end, he was asking that the Appeal Committee and the Board of Governors accept, at his word, that a partial excerpt of yet another version of the thesis was the real version reviewed by the committee in 2002 and that the missing portions of that version were also free from plagiarism. [67] It may be that Mr. Measor s version of events is true, and that the Special Committee s factual findings were wrong. It may be that after an initial attempt at plagiarism, he did indeed submit wholly original work in his thesis, and it is the University who is at fault for archiving an incorrect version. In such circumstances, rescission of his degree would be unfortunate. However, the record before me reveals no reviewable error by any of the three tribunals involved in reaching a contrary conclusion. Conclusion [68] In summary, I find that the University had the power to rescind the Applicant s degree. This is necessarily implied by the statutory power to grant degrees certifying to the community at

11 Page: 11 large that the holder has achieved such a distinction. The University was not precluded from investigating and responding to the plagiarism complaint under the doctrine of functus officio or issue estoppel because the allegations and facts underlying the 2013 complaint were different than those dealt with in 2002 when the plagiarism concern first arose. The process employed by the University met the high standard of procedural fairness required given the seriousness of the situation and passage of time since the degree was awarded. The application is therefore dismissed. [69] If the parties cannot agree on costs, that matter may be brought back to me within thirty days of receipt of this decision by way of written request. Submissions in respect of costs shall not exceed five pages, exclusive of authorities. Heard on the 23 th day of May, Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 14 th day of September, 2018 R.A. Neufeld J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Eric Groody and Jennifer Joss for the Applicant Emmett Scrimshaw and Mylene D. Tiessen for the Respondents