Bridgeland Riverside Community Association v. Calgary (City) and Patricia Investments Ltd., (1982) 37 A.R. 26 (CA)

• Judge: Haddad, Harradence and Kerans, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: May 10, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 37 A.R. 26 (CA);1982 ABCA 138;135 DLR (3d) 724;19 Alta LR (2d) 361;37 AR 26;[1982] AJ No 692 (QL)

Bridgeland Riverside Com. v. Calgary (1982), 37 A.R. 26 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Bridgeland Riverside Community Association v. Calgary, City of and Patricia Investments Ltd.

(Appeal No. 13459)

Indexed As: Bridgeland Riverside Community Association v. Calgary (City) and Patricia Investments Ltd.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Haddad, Harradence and Kerans, JJ.A.

May 10, 1982.

Summary:

A developer applied to the City of Calgary for a redevelopment permit for a 123 unit apartment building. The application was rejected. The developer appealed to the Development Appeal Board.

Before the Development Appeal Board the developer's application was amended. The Development Appeal Board approved the amended application. An intervenor appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal respecting the approval by the board.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Land Regulation - Topic 3274

Land use control - Development permits - Appeals - Jurisdiction of Development Appeal Board to grant exceptions from a land use plan or by-law - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that under s. 83(3)(a) of the Planning Act the power of the Development Appeal Board to grant exceptions applies equally to land use by-laws, land use regulations, regional plans, ministerial regional plans, and statutory plans (see paragraphs 7 to 18).

Administrative Law - Topic 2451

Natural justice - Procedure, notice - Effect of lack of notice - A Development Appeal Board approved an amended development proposal without giving the required notice - The Alberta Court of Appeal refused to declare the proceeding void where no one claimed prejudice as a result of the lack of notice (see paragraphs 20 to 28).

Administrative Law - Topic 2521

Natural justice - Effect of denial of natural justice - The Alberta Court of Appeal referred to the rule that a breach of the rules of natural justice nullifies a proceeding - The court also referred to exceptions to the rule (see paragraph 23).

Cases Noticed:

Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. Lyttle (1973), 34 D.L.R.(3d) 127, folld. [para. 22].

Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40, ref'd to. [para. 23].

Durayappah v. Fernando, [1967] 2 A.C. 337, ref'd to. [para. 23].

Wiswell v. Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg, [1965] S.C.R. 512, ref'd to. [para. 25].

Fontaine v. Serben and Serben, [1974] 5 W.W.R. 428, ref'd to. [para. 27].

Rizzie v. J.H. Lilley and Associates Ltd., [1976] 2 W.W.R. 97, ref'd to. [para. 27].

Vic Restaurant Inc. v. City of Montreal (1959), 17 D.L.R.(2d) 81 (S.C.C.), ref'd to. [para. 30].

Statutes Noticed:

Planning Act, S.A. 1977, c. 89, sect. 65 [para. 15]; sect. 83(3)(a) [para. 7].

Counsel:

A.H. Trawick, for the appellant, Bridgeland Riverside Community Association;

B.R. Inlow, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by HADDAD, HARRADENCE and KERANS, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by KERANS, J.A., at Calgary, Alberta, on May 10, 1982.