1694192 Alberta Ltd. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Lac La Biche (County)) et al., 2014 ABCA 319

• Judge: Picard, Watson and O'Ferrall, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: May 27, 2014
• Citations: 2014 ABCA 319;(2014), 584 A.R. 112

1694192 Alta. Ltd. v. Dev. Appeal Bd. (2014), 584 A.R. 112; 623 W.A.C. 112 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. OC.006

1694192 Alberta Ltd. (appellant) v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board of Lac La Biche County and Lac La Biche County (respondents) and Patrick Leibel (respondent by order)

(1303-0110-AC; 2014 ABCA 319)

Indexed As: 1694192 Alberta Ltd. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Lac La Biche (County)) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Picard, Watson and O'Ferrall, JJ.A.

October 1, 2014.

Summary:

The Municipal Planning Commission for the County of Lac La Biche approved a development permit to 1694192 Alberta Ltd. (1694). The permit related to the development of a campground on a parcel at the end of a township road. The Commission published notice of the approval in the local newspaper promptly under s. 24(2) of the County's Land Use Bylaw No. 12-024 (LUB). The Commission then issued the development permit to 1694. But in so doing, the Commission neglected to provide written notice of the approval to adjacent landowner Leibel and to the other adjacent landowner as required by s. 24(3) of the LUB within the time frame contemplated. No appeals were filed in response to the s. 24(2) newspaper publication within the time provided for so doing. Leibel appealed the development permit approval. The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) found that it had jurisdiction under the Municipal Government Act (MGA) to hear the appeal by Leibel despite the reliance of 1694 on the development permit. The SDAB allowed Leibel's appeal and found that the development permit should be revoked. 1694 appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Land Regulation - Topic 3280

Land use control - Building or development permits - Appeals to appeal board - Time for - The Municipal Planning Commission for the County of Lac La Biche approved a development permit to 1694192 Alberta Ltd. (1694) - The permit related to the development of a campground on a parcel at the end of a township road - The Commission published notice of the approval in the local newspaper promptly under s. 24(2) of the County's Land Use Bylaw No. 12-024 (LUB) - The Commission then issued the development permit to 1694 - The Commission neglected to provide written notice of the approval to adjacent landowner Leibel and to the other adjacent landowner as required by s. 24(3) of the LUB within the time frame contemplated - No appeals were filed in response to the s. 24(2) newspaper publication within the time provided - Leibel appealed the development permit approval - The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) found that it had jurisdiction under the Municipal Government Act (MGA) to hear the appeal by Leibel despite the reliance of 1694 on the development permit - The SDAB allowed Leibel's appeal and found that the development permit should be revoked - 1694 appealed - At issue was what was the status of a development permit that was issued after a possible error or omission with respect to service of the permit on adjacent landowners, including (i) What was the legal effect of a notice of a permit given after the five day period for service required in the LUB? (ii) Once the development permit was issued, did the SDAB have continuing jurisdiction to deal with any subsequent appeal of the permit? (iii) When did the development permit create an issue estoppel precluding any further attacks on its validity? (iv) Was 1694 still able to challenge the validity of the notice of appeal, having regard to its participation in, and the position taken at the SDAB hearing? - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The Municipal Government Act (MGA) and the LUB established an appeal period - The appeal had to be filed 14 days "after the date on which the notice of the issuance of the development permit was published in accordance with SECTION 24(2)" (LUB s. 25(4)) - What the Commission did was to give the notice under s. 24(3) of the LUB beyond the five day period - In so doing, the Commission did not act "in accordance" with the LUB, and in particular breached a requirement of the LUB worded in mandatory (imperative) language binding upon itself, and not upon either the adjacent neighbour or the developer - Neither the developer nor the adjacent landowner was responsible for that breach - To find that the written notice subsequently given by the Commission to Leibel was legally able to furnish Leibel with an ability to appeal under the LUB was a balanced interpretation of the ambiguities of the LUB which could reconcile the right of Leibel, the adjacent landowner to notice under the LUB and MGA, with the right of the developer, originating outside of the LUB itself but regulated through it, to acquire a parcel and then to develop his property.

Cases Noticed:

Cameron Corp. et al. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 302; 2012 ABCA 254, refd to. [para. 18].

Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2009), 448 A.R. 31; 447 W.A.C. 31; 2009 ABCA 65, refd to. [para. 18].

Maduke et al. v. Leduc (County) No. 25 et al., [2010] A.R. Uned. 523; 2010 CarswellAlta 2151; 2010 ABCA 331, refd to. [para. 18].

McCauley Community League v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2012), 522 A.R. 98; 544 W.A.C. 98; 2012 ABCA 86, refd to. [para. 18].

Kiewit Energy Canada Corp. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton) et al. (2013), 566 A.R. 90; 597 W.A.C. 90; 87 Alta. L.R.(5th) 287; 2013 ABCA 407, leave to appeal denied [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 27, refd to. [para. 18].

Stewart v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board of (Lac Ste. Anne (County)) et al. (2006), 397 A.R. 185; 384 W.A.C. 185; 2006 ABCA 264, refd to. [para. 19].

Edmonton Police Service v. Furlong et al. (2013), 544 A.R. 191; 567 W.A.C. 191; 2013 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 19].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 21].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith (2011), 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 21].

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Calgary (City) et al. (2014), 580 A.R. 125; 620 W.A.C. 125; 83 C.E.L.R.(3d) 181; 2014 ABCA 231, refd to. [para. 21].

Rogers Communications Inc. et al. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada et al., [2012] 2 S.C.R. 283; 432 N.R. 1; 347 D.L.R.(4th) 235; 2012 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 23].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission (2013), 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 452 N.R. 340; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 23].

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 23].

Irving Pulp and Paper Ltd. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 458; 445 N.R. 1; 404 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 1048 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 23].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission (2013), 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 452 N.R. 340; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 24].

Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council - see Carrier Sekani Tribal Council v. British Columbia Utilities Commission et al.

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council v. British Columbia Utilities Commission et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 650; 406 N.R. 333; 293 B.C.A.C. 175; 496 W.A.C. 175; 2010 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 25].

Coventry Homes Inc. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Beaumont (Town)) et al. (2001), 277 A.R. 278; 242 W.A.C. 278; 2001 ABCA 49, refd to. [para. 31].

Masellis et al. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton (City)) et al. (2011), 505 A.R. 231; 522 W.A.C. 231; 2011 ABCA 157, refd to. [para. 31].

Bowen v. City of Edmonton (1977), 3 A.R. 63; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 40].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. C.K.W. (2005), 376 A.R. 107; 360 W.A.C. 107; 204 C.C.C.(3d) 380; 2005 ABCA 446, refd to. [para. 41].

Grey v. Pearson (1857), 10 E.R. 1216, refd to. [para. 42].

Alberta (Minister of Education) et al. v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency et al. (2012), 432 N.R. 134; 2012 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 45].

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 275; 23 N.R. 298; 90 D.L.R.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 45].

321665 Alberta Ltd. v. ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. et al. (2013), 553 A.R. 293; 583 W.A.C. 293; 82 Alta. L.R.(5th) 124; 2013 ABCA 221, refd to. [para. 45].

Reference Re Broadcasting Act (2012), 437 N.R. 124; 2012 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 45].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 49].

Minister of National Revenue v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601; 340 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 52].

Tymchak v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton) et al. (2012), 519 A.R. 295; 539 W.A.C. 295; 2012 ABCA 22, refd to. [para. 54].

Young Estate et al. v. TransAlta Utilities Corp. et al. (1997), 209 A.R. 89; 160 W.A.C. 89; 1997 ABCA 349, refd to. [para. 56].

Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District) (2012), 425 N.R. 22; 316 B.C.A.C. 1; 537 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 57].

Statutes Noticed:

Lac LaBiche (County) Bylaws, Land Use Bylaw No. 12.024, sect. 24, sect. 25 [para. 26].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 67 [para. 39].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), generally [para. 41]; p. 330 [para. 45].

Counsel:

R. Noce, Q.C., and L.D. Kumpf (student-at-law), for the appellant;

S.C. McNaughtan, Q.C. (as agent for W.W. Barclay), for the respondent, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board of Lac La Biche County;

G.F. Chivers (no appearance), for the respondent, Lac La Biche County;

J.W. Murphy, Q.C., for the respondent by order, Patrick Leibel.

This appeal was heard on May 27, 2014, by Picard, Watson and O'Ferrall, JJ.A., of the Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by the Court on October 1, 2014.