Bergstrom v. Beaumont (Town) et al., 2016 ABCA 221

• Judge: Wakeling, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: June 29, 2016
• Citations: 2016 ABCA 221;[2016] A.R. TBEd. JL.077

Bergstrom v. Beaumont, [2016] A.R. TBEd. JL.077

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. JL.077

Cassandra Bergstrom (applicant) v. The Town of Beaumont and The Town of Beaumont Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (respondents)

(1503-0289-AC; 2016 ABCA 221)

Indexed As: Bergstrom v. Beaumont (Town) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Wakeling, J.A.

July 21, 2016.

Summary:

Bergstrom applied under s. 688(2) of the Municipal Government Act for permission to appeal from a decision of the Town of Beaumont's Subdivision and Development Appeal Board revoking her development permit allowing her to operate a home-based business, Super Hound Dog Grooming.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - [See second Land Regulation - Topic 3239 ].

Land Regulation - Topic 3224

Land use control - Building or development permits - Revocation - [See second Land Regulation - Topic 3239 ].

Land Regulation - Topic 3239

Land use control - Building or development permits - Judicial review or appeals to courts - Bergstrom applied under s. 688(2) of the Municipal Government Act for permission to appeal from a decision of the Town of Beaumont's Subdivision and Development Appeal Board revoking her development permit allowing her to operate a home-based business, Super Hound Dog Grooming - Bergstrom filed an affidavit that set out her account of the facts relating to her dog-grooming business - The Town of Beaumont contested the admissibility of the affidavit - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., held that the affidavit was inadmissible - It served neither of the purposes set out in s. 688(2) as prerequisites to admission (i.e., it did not demonstrate that the board failed to conduct a fair hearing or was biased nor did it show that the question of law was of importance either to the applicant or the community) - It was not appropriate to use an affidavit in a permission-to-appeal application as the medium to introduce evidence that could have been presented to the board - See paragraphs 3 to 8 and 30 to 39.

Land Regulation - Topic 3239

Land use control - Building or development permits - Judicial review or appeals to courts - Bergstrom applied under s. 688(2) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) for permission to appeal from a decision of the Town of Beaumont's Subdivision and Development Appeal Board revoking her development permit allowing her to operate a home-based dog grooming business - If permission was granted, she intended to argue, inter alia, that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for decision in accordance with s. 687(2) of the MGA - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., dismissed the application - While the applicant raised a question of law, it was not of sufficient importance to merit further appeal - The prospects of success were extremely low and did not constitute a "reasonable chance of success" - While the board's explanation for its decision was "skeletal in nature", it was adequate to qualify as "reasons for the decision" under s. 687(2) of the MGA - See paragraphs 9 to 26 and 40 to 64.

Land Regulation - Topic 4145

Land use control - Appeals to the courts - Leave to appeal - On question of law or jurisdiction - [See second Land Regulation - Topic 3239 ].

Land Regulation - Topic 4155

Land use control - Appeals to the courts - Evidence - [See first Land Regulation - Topic 3239 ].

Counsel:

A. Persi, for the applicant;

J.S. Grundberg, for the respondent, The Town of Beaumont;

K.L. Becker Brookes, for the respondent, The Town of Beaumont, Subdivision and Development Appeal Board.

This application was heard on June 29, 2016, in Edmonton, Alberta, before Wakeling, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on July 21, 2016.