Consortium Developments (Clearwater) Ltd. v. Sarnia (City) et al., (1998) 230 N.R. 343 (SCC)

• Judge: Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: March 16, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 230 N.R. 343 (SCC)

Consortium Dev. Ltd. v. Sarnia (1998), 230 N.R. 343 (SCC)

MLB Headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [1998] N.R. TBEd. OC.014

Consortium Developments (Clearwater) Ltd. (appellants) v. The Corporation of the City of Sarnia and the Lambton County Roman Catholic Separate School Board (respondents)

Kenneth MacAlpine, James Pumple and MacPump Developments Ltd. (appellants) v. The Corporation of the City of Sarnia and the Lambton County Roman Catholic Separate School Board (respondents)

(25604)

Indexed As: Consortium Developments (Clearwater) Ltd. v. Sarnia (City) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé,

Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci,

Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

March 16, 1998.

Summary:

The Town of Clearwater and the City of Sarnia amalgamated. Sarnia passed a resolution directing a public inquiry under s. 100(1) of the Municipal Act into property transactions in Clearwater prior to the amalgamation. A commissioner was appointed. Property developers involved in the transactions applied for judicial review to quash the resolution. They argued that the inquiry's terms of reference exceeded the municipality's jurisdiction. The commissioner, without hearing submissions from the property developers, determined not to adjourn the inquiry pending the hearing of the application for judicial review. The property developers applied for removal of the commissioner.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a judgment reported 81 O.A.C. 96, dismissed the application for removal of the commissioner.

The property developers issued summonses to individual council members. The municipality applied to quash the summonses.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a judgment reported 81 O.A.C. 102, quashed the summonses.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a judgment reported 83 O.A.C. 241, dismissed the application to quash Sarnia's resolution. The property developers appealed all three judgments.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 92 O.A.C. 321, dismissed the appeal. The property developers appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Editor's note: For a related case, see 75 O.A.C. 378.

Administrative Law - Topic 222

The hearing and decision - Right to be heard - When available - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1519 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2087

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal - Bias - General - [See Administrative Law - Topic 5014 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2272

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Circumstances or powers to which duty applies - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1519 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2442

Natural justice - Procedure - Notice - When required - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1519 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 5014

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting certiorari - Breach of rules of natural justice - The City of Sarnia passed a resolution directing a judicial inquiry under s. 100(1) of the Municipal Act (Ont.) into certain property transactions - The property developers involved in the transactions applied to quash the resolution - The inquiry commissioner, without hearing submissions from the developers, decided to proceed without awaiting the result of the developers' application and outlined the procedure he would follow - The developers applied to remove the commissioner, arguing that they were denied natural justice in that the commissioner did not act impartially when he erroneously failed to share commission counsel advice and hear the developers' submissions - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the removal application - See paragraphs 55 and 56.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6963

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Municipal institutions - Extent of subject matter - Public inquiries - The City of Sarnia passed a resolution directing a judicial inquiry under s. 100(1) of the Municipal Act (Ont.) after certain property transactions involving developers left the City with a park acquired at an allegedly excessive price and with an unperforming mortgage on lands acquired by the developers - The resolution was passed after the Ontario Provincial Police found that there was "no evidence of the commission of any criminal offence" - The developers applied to quash the resolution as ultra vires because it was a substitute for a police investigation and infringed on the federal criminal law power - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the application - See paragraphs 46 to 52.

Evidence - Topic 5607

Witnesses - Competency and compella-bility - Compellability - Boards and tribunals - Members of municipal council - The City of Sarnia passed a resolution directing a judicial inquiry under s. 100(1) of the Municipal Act (Ont.) after certain property transactions involving developers left the City with a park acquired at an allegedly excessive price and with an unperforming mortgage on lands acquired by the developers - The developers applied to quash the resolution - They issued summonses to individual council members to obtain background evidence on the resolution including the intent of council members in proposing it - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the quashing of the summonses because the evidence sought was not relevant - See paragraphs 42 to 45.

Municipal Law - Topic 413

Councils - Resolutions - Quashing of - Grounds - Purpose of resolution not authorized by empowering statute - The Town of Clearwater and the City of Sarnia amalgamated pursuant to the Sarnia-Lambton Act, 1989 (Ont.) - Sarnia passed a resolution directing a judicial inquiry under s. 100(1) of the Municipal Act (Ont.) into certain property transactions in Clearwater prior to amalgamation - The property developers involved in the transactions applied to quash the resolution - They argued that the Sarnia-Lambton Act created a discontinuity between the former municipalities, now dissolved, and a new and separate entity, and that s. 100(1) did not allow the new City of Sarnia to investigate into the former Clearwater - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the application - See paragraphs 53 to 54.

Municipal Law - Topic 415

Councils - Resolutions - Quashing of - Grounds - Resolution unconstitutional - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 6963 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1519

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Inquiries - Section 100(1) of the Municipal Act (Ont.) authorized municipalities to pass resolutions setting up judicial inquiries to investigate supposed misconduct by municipal officials or to inquire respecting matters connected with municipal good government - The City of Sarnia passed a resolution directing a judicial inquiry after certain property transactions involving developers left the City with a park acquired at an allegedly excessive price and with an unperforming mortgage on lands acquired by the developers - The developers applied to quash the resolution for failure to comply with s. 100(1) - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the application, adding that the inquiry commissioner was bound by the applicable principles of natural justice dealing with notice and the opportunity to be heard - See paragraphs 26 to 41.

Cases Noticed:

MacPump Developments Ltd. v. Sarnia (City) (1994), 75 O.A.C. 378; 20 O.R.(3d) 755 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

Irving Oil Ltd., Canaport Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 106; 46 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 16].

Thorne's Hardware Ltd. et al. v. The Queen - see Irving Oil Ltd., Canaport Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board.

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440; 216 N.R. 321, consd. [para. 37].

Di Iorio and Fontaine v. Warden of the Common Jail of Montreal (City), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152; 8 N.R. 361; 73 D.L.R.(3d) 491, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202; 48 C.R.(3d) 193; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 513; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 193; 41 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 18 C.R.R. 1; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 37].

Godson v. Toronto (City) (1890), 18 S.C.R. 36, consd. [para. 38].

Starr et al. v. Houlden, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1366; 110 N.R. 81; 41 O.A.C. 161; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 472, consd. [para. 42].

Milk Board (B.C.) v. Grisnich et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 895; 183 N.R. 39; 61 B.C.A.C. 81; 100 W.A.C. 81; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 191, refd to. [para. 43].

Canada Metal Co. v. Heap (1975), 7 O.R.(2d) 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Nelles et al. v. Grange et al. (1984), 3 O.A.C. 40; 46 O.R.(2d) 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Keable and Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218; 24 N.R. 1; 90 D.L.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 52].

O'Hara and Kirkbride v. British Columbia, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 591; 80 N.R. 127, refd to. [para. 52].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 129; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 20; 28 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 52].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 121 [para. 51].

Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-45, sect. 100(1) [para. 8].

Sarnia (City), Resolutions, Resolution to request a Judicial Inquiry pursuant to Section 100 of the Municipal Act, and to provide the Terms of Reference therefor, generally [para. 13].

Sarnia-Lambton Act, S.O. 1989, c. 41, sect. 9 [para. 54].

Counsel:

Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., and Susan J. Stamm, for the appellants;

George H. Rust-D'Eye, Barnet H. Kussner and Valerie M'Garry, for the respondent, the City of Sarnia;

Thomson Irvine, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, Consortium Development (Clearwater) Ltd.;

Gignac, Sutts, Windsor, Ontario, for the appellants, Kenneth MacAlpine, James Pumple and MacPump Developments Ltd.;

Weir & Foulds, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, the City of Sarnia;

John D, Whyte, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on March 16, 1998, by Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered orally in both official languages on March 16, 1998, with written reasons delivered in both languages by Binnie, J., on October 22, 1998.