Brown et al. v. Sturgeon (County), 2001 ABQB 920

• Judge: Wilson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 05, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABQB 920;(2001), 302 A.R. 166 (QB)

Brown v. Sturgeon (2001), 302 A.R. 166 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. NO.033

Anne Brown, Michael Brown, Jim Zulkoskey, Marilynne Zulkoskey, Mark R. Patterson, Christine M. Patterson, David Redford, Marcia Redford, Wilbert Brooks, Helen Brooks, Mike Myers, Arlene Myers, Lorne Zallas, Jerry Madro, Sheree Madro, Dennis Ricard, Elsie Ricard, Patricia Callaghan, Don Tufford, Nancy Tufford, Gisele Mann, Don Madro, Ken Hardy, Eunice Hardy, Jim Acton, Bill Prins, Wayne Groot, Caesar Diogo, Theresa Colton, Ernie Vanboom, Cecil Goutbeck, Rob Fairweather, Wendy Fairweather, Rob Melnychuk, Lloyd Hanson, John Pratt, Albina Pratt, Claude Lafond, Warren Lusk, Susan Lusk, Wayne Johnston, and Marlys Johnston (applicants) v. Sturgeon County (respondent)

(Action No. 0103 13015; 2001 ABQB 920)

Indexed As: Brown et al. v. Sturgeon (County)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Wilson, J.

October 31, 2001.

Summary:

The applicants brought a motion to challenge a bylaw passed by a municipality as the result of the adoption of an Area Structure Plan.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion.

Land Regulation - Topic 3349

Land use control - Official or development plans - Sequence of development - Section 633 of the Municipal Government Act (Alta.) provided that an Area Structure Plan had to describe the sequence of development proposed for the area - The Area Structure Plan adopted in the present instance provided for sequencing in the following manner: "Staging of development in all policy areas will be determined by the locational preferences and site selection processes of individual firms and organizations and by the availability of required infrastructure" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the sequencing proposed conformed with the Act - See paragraphs 19 to 22.

Municipal Law - Topic 3283

Bylaws - Conditions precedent to enactment - Hearing - Section 636(1) of the Municipal Government Act (Alta.) stipulated that while preparing a statutory plan, a municipality had to provide a means for any affected person to make suggestions and representations and had to notify the public of the plan preparation process and of the means to make suggestions and representations - The municipality gave notice of a public consultation meeting but two days before the meeting, the place of meeting was changed because it was too small - The meeting, when it was held, was large and well attended - Some citizens objected about the change of the meeting place - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the municipality did notify as required by the Act, and the objection about the change of location was not a reason to find their process flawed - See paragraphs 22 to 27.

Municipal Law - Topic 3890

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Judicial review - Practice - Limitation period - Section 537 of the Municipal Government Act (Alta.), required that a person objecting to a bylaw had to make application within 60 days after the bylaw or resolution was passed - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a notice of motion filed within the 60 days but not returnable until after the 60 days had expired, was out of time - See paragraphs 8 to 12.

Cases Noticed:

Sommers v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Red Deer No. 23 (County)) et al. (2000), 266 A.R. 90; 228 W.A.C. 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Fraser v. Calgary (City) (1978), 10 A.R. 456 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Houg Alberta Ltd. v. 417034 Alberta Ltd. (1991), 117 A.R. 196; 2 W.A.C. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Bracko v. Parchewsky et al. (1997), 202 A.R. 69 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Parkallen Community Association (1960) et al. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (1999), 242 A.R. 127 (Q.B.), not folld. [para. 11].

Hartel Holdings Co. v. Calgary (City), [1984] S.C.R. 337; 53 N.R. 149; 53 A.R. 175; 31 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 15].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al. [1989] 4 W.W.R. 708; 58 Man.R.(2d) 255 (C.A.), affd. [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 60 Man.R.(2d) 134; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 15].

Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia et al. v. Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board et al. (1994), 128 N.S.R.(2d) 5; 359 A.P.R. 5; 20 M.P.L.R.(2d) 84 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1994), 178 N.R. 393; 136 N.S.R.(2d) 890; 388 A.P.R. 890 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Government Act, S.A. 1994, c. M-26.1, sect. 537 [para. 9]; sect. 633 [para. 18]; sect. 636(1) [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Laux, Frederick A., Planning Law and Practice in Alberta (2nd Ed. 1996), pp. 5 to 18 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Rangi Jeerakathil, for the applicants;

Denis Noel and Angela Edgington, for the respondent.

Wilson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, heard this motion on October 5, 2001, and delivered the following memorandum of decision on October 31, 2001.