Digest: C & D Septic Ltd. v Prince Albert (City), 2018 SKQB 185

Date:June 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 185

Docket Number: QB 353/17 JCPA , QB17571

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-06-18


  • Meschishnick


  • Administrative Law � Judicial Review � Procedural Fairness

Digest: The applicant applied for an order quashing a decision of the respondent, the City of Prince Albert, on the grounds that: it did not engage in a fair process in making the decision; the decision was unreasonable; and it acted in bad faith. The applicant operated a septic tank cleaning, haulage and disposal service to residential, commercial, institutional and farming customers in Prince Albert and environs. The respondent permitted the applicant to deposit liquid and solid waste into its wastewater treatment facilities and landfill. In July 2017 it provided notice to the applicant that it would no longer permit it to have access to the respondent�s facilities because, after an investigation, it suspected that the applicant was illegally discharging septage into the respondent�s sanitary sewer system. The respondent referred the investigation report to the bylaw enforcement unit of the police and the applicant was charged with five violations. It pled not guilty and the matter was still outstanding. The respondent also sent a letter to its residents who were not connected to the sewer system stating that they would no longer be entitled to reimbursement of five percent of the cost of having their septic tanks emptied, pursuant to its municipal rebate program, if they hired the applicant to perform the service. A meeting held between the parties subsequent to the letter being sent to the applicant did not result in a resolution of the matter. The bylaws regarding sewers and landfills passed by the respondent pursuant to The Cities Act did not provide for an appeal from the decision of the Director of Public Works nor was there an appeal provision from a decision concerning eligibility in the respondent�s resolution that created the rebate program. The respondent argued that its decision was not subject to judicial review.
HELD: The application was granted and the respondent�s decisions were quashed.
The court ordered that in making any decisions regarding the conduct of the applicant that the respondent should provide: notice to it; the decisions being considered and the authority under which they were made; the evidence it relied upon; and the procedures by which the matter would be heard. The court

To continue reading