4500911 Manitoba Ltd. v. Stuartburn (Rural Municipality)

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Judge: Huband, Kroft and Hamilton, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 313 (CA),2003 MBCA 122
• Date: 26 September 2003

4500911 Man. Ltd. v. Stuartburn (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 313 (CA);

    304 W.A.C. 313

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.003

4500911 Manitoba Ltd. (applicant/appellant) v. The Rural Municipality of Stuartburn (respondent/respondent)

(AI 02-30-05421; 2003 MBCA 122)

Indexed As: 4500911 Manitoba Ltd. v. Stuartburn (Rural Municipality)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Huband, Kroft and Hamilton, JJ.A.

September 26, 2003.

Summary:

The applicant sought a declaration that two resolutions and a bylaw relating to intensive livestock operations within the Rural Municipality of Stuartburn were illegal and invalid.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 168 Man.R.(2d) 294, allowed the application with respect to the two resolutions and dismissed it with respect to the bylaw. The applicant appealed. The Rural Municipality did not cross-appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Municipal Law - Topic 1489.1

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Control of farming operations - [See Municipal Law - Topic 3842 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3842

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Ultra vires - A bylaw of a rural municipality required that, prior to the construction, erection, placement or carrying out of an intensive livestock operation, a permit had to be obtained from the municipality - The bylaw also prohibited livestock operations from locating within specified communities within the municipality - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the bylaw, which contained a zoning component, was valid as being authorized by ss. 231, 232 and 233 of the Municipal Act - The court added that the Planning Act contemplated that a municipality could pass a by-law under its "general welfare authority" which would have zoning implications.

Cases Noticed:

114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town) (2001), 271 N.R. 201 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 23].

Oshawa (City) v. 505191 Ontario Ltd. (1986), 14 O.A.C. 217; 32 M.P.L.R. 158 (C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Act, S.M. 1996, c. 58; C.C.S.M., c. M-225, sect. 231 [para. 19]; sect. 232(1)(a), sect. 232(1)(c), sect. 232(1)(n) [para. 20]; sect. 232(2)(a), sect. 232(2)(c), sect. 232(2)(e)(iii) [para. 21]; sect. 233(a), sect. 233(d) [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rogers, Ian McF., The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed.) (1971 Looseleaf) (Cum. Supp. to Vol. 1), p. 367 [para. 23].

Counsel:

R.J.M. Adkins, for the appellant;

M.G. Tramley, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 18, 2003, by Huband, Kroft and Hamilton, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on September 26, 2003, by Huband, J.A.