Beaverford v. Thorhild No. 7 (County) et al., 2013 ABCA 6

• Judge: Watson, Slatter and Rowbotham, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 31, 2012
• Citations: 2013 ABCA 6;(2013), 539 A.R. 373

Beaverford v. Thorhild No. 7 (2013), 539 A.R. 373; 561 W.A.C. 373 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. JA.045

Robert Beaverford (appellant) v. County of Thorhild No. 7 and County of Thorhild No. 7 Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (respondents) and Long Lake Cottage Owner's Association (respondent by Order)

(1103-0270-AC; 2013 ABCA 6)

Indexed As: Beaverford v. Thorhild No. 7 (County) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Watson, Slatter and Rowbotham, JJ.A.

January 8, 2013.

Summary:

The County of Thorhild No. 7 Subdivision and Development Appeal Board dismissed Beaverford's application for a gravel extraction development permit. Beaverford applied for leave to appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Berger, J.A., in a decision reported at [2012] A.R. Uned. 31, allowed the application.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - Beaverford applied to the County of Thorhild's Municipal Planning Commission for a gravel extraction development permit - The application was denied - Beaverford appealed to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) - Among the SDAB panel members that heard Beaverford's appeal was Croswell, a municipal councillor who had previously communicated opinions about gravel pits and gravel extraction within Thorhild County - Beaverford asked that Croswell be disqualified or removed from the panel on the grounds that his prior comments about the subject matter created a reasonable apprehension of bias on his part that would affect the SDAB - To support his allegation, Beaverford provided copies of postings from Croswell's Facebook page, a flier and an open letter Croswell had written to his constituents expressing his strong opinions against gravel pits - The SDAB did not accept Beaverford's objections - The SDAB denied Beaverford's application for a permit and recorded in its reasons that it was Croswell who moved to deny the permit - Beaverford appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - A reasonable person could infer from the circumstances as a whole that Croswell had influence over the reasoning process of the SDAB panel as a whole - Under those circumstances, an apprehension of bias on the part of the SDAB could be reasonably thought to arise from the participation of Croswell.

Cases Noticed:

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134, refd to. [para. 13].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 13].

Beier et al. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Vermilion River (County)) (2009), 464 A.R. 242; 467 W.A.C. 242; 2009 ABCA 338, refd to. [para. 13].

Mountain Creeks Ranch Inc. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Yellowhead (County)) et al., [2006] A.R. Uned. 896; 2006 ABCA 126, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 15].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 15].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259; 309 N.R. 201; 2003 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 15].

Lavesta Area Group Inc. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) et al. (2012), 522 A.R. 88; 544 W.A.C. 88; 2012 ABCA 84, refd to. [para. 16].

Gahir v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2009), 448 A.R. 135; 447 W.A.C. 135; 2009 ABCA 59, refd to. [para. 16].

Edmonton Police Association et al. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2007), 409 A.R. 1; 402 W.A.C. 1; 2007 ABCA 184, refd to. [para. 17].

Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council) - see Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé.

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 17].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271; 4 Admin. L.R.(2d) 121; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 18].

Man O'War Station Ltd. v. Auckland City Council, [2002] 3 N.Z.L.R. 577; [2002] UKPC 28, refd to. [para. 20].

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].

Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2011), 417 N.R. 126; 279 O.A.C. 63; 2011 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 21].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884; 306 N.R. 34, refd to. [para. 21].

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Quebec (Minister of the Environment) - see Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée v. Québec (Ministre de l'Environement).

Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée v. Québec (Ministre de l'Environnement), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 624; 310 N.R. 343; 231 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2003 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 22].

McLaren v. Castlegar (City) (2011), 302 B.C.A.C. 295; 511 W.A.C. 295; 27 Admin. L.R.(5th) 333; 2011 BCCA 134, refd to. [para. 23].

Peters et al. v. Strathcona No. 20 (County) et al. (1989), 102 A.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Baker et al. v. Municipal District of Foothills No. 31, [1981] 2 W.W.R. 128; 116 D.L.R.(3d) 636 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Alberta v. Nilsson (2002), 320 A.R. 88; 288 W.A.C. 88; 2002 ABCA 283, leave to appeal denied (2003), 320 N.R. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303; 302 N.R. 201; 171 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 28].

Mugesera et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 91; 335 N.R. 220; 2005 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 32].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Laux, F.A., Planning Law and Practice in Alberta, Looseleaf (3rd Ed. 2010), paras. 10-6, 10-7, 7-32 [para. 26].

Counsel:

R.A. Farmer, for the appellant;

B.A. Sjolie, Q.C., for the respondent, County of Thorhild No. 7;

V. Giannacopoulos, as agent for J.A. Agrios, Q.C., for the respondent, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board of the County of Thorhild;

K.L. Becker Brookes, for the respondent, Long Lake Cottage Owners Association.

This appeal was heard on October 31, 2012, by Watson, Slatter and Rowbotham, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on January 8, 2013.