Eagle's Nest Youth Ranch Inc. v. Corman Park No. 344 (Rural Municipality), (2016) 476 Sask.R. 18 (CA)

• Judge: Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: February 11, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2016), 476 Sask.R. 18 (CA);2016 SKCA 20

Eagle's Nest v. Corman Park (2016), 476 Sask.R. 18 (CA);

    666 W.A.C. 18

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.042

Eagle's Nest Youth Ranch Inc. (appellant/applicant) v. Rural Municipality of Corman Park No. 344 (respondent/respondent)

(CACV2532; 2016 SKCA 20)

Indexed As: Eagle's Nest Youth Ranch Inc. v. Corman Park No. 344 (Rural Municipality)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.

February 11, 2016.

Summary:

Eagle's Nest Youth Ranch Inc. wanted to establish a community care facility on its land in the Rural Municipality of Corman Park No. 344 (RM) so as to carry out a therapeutic group-living program for troubled youth. A land use of this nature was a discretionary use under the RM's Zoning Bylaw. The RM rejected Eagle's Nest's discretionary use application. No reasons were given for that decision. Eagle's Nest applied for an order compelling the RM to provide written reasons for its decision.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2013), 422 Sask.R. 123, ordered the RM to provide reasons for its decision to refuse Eagle's Nest's discretionary use application. The RM council passed a motion setting out the reasons for its decision. Eagle's Nest sought to quash the RM council's decision. The chambers judge dismissed Eagle's Nest's application. Eagle's Nest appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Richards, C.J.S., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunals - Reasons for decision - Sufficiency of - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - The Rural Municipality of Corman Park No. 344 (RM) rejected a discretionary use application by Eagle's Nest Youth Ranch Inc. - Eagle's Nest applied for judicial review - The application was dismissed - Eagle's Nest appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge erred in identifying the standard of reasonableness as applicable to matters of procedural fairness - The chambers judge had to determine whether the RM council had satisfied its obligation to give reasons for its decision in the circumstances of this case - Eagle's Nest had not challenged the reasoning/result of the decision - Its application did that in other ways - Rather, this part of Eagle's Nest's application truly raised an issue of procedural fairness - There remained a legitimate basis for challenging the procedural fairness of the RM's decision on a correctness standard, as distinguished from a challenge to the reasonableness of the decision itself - The chambers judge erred because he failed to identify the correct standard of review for the procedural fairness question that had arisen before him - His inquiry should have occurred under the approach set forth in Baker v. Canada (SCC) on a standard of correctness - However, the court concluded that the RM did provide Eagle's Nest with an appropriate level of procedural fairness - From the standpoint of procedural fairness, the RM council's motion constituted adequate reasons for the RM's decision - See paragraphs 20 to 33.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - Eagle's Nest Youth Ranch Inc. wanted to establish a community care facility on its land in the Rural Municipality of Corman Park No. 344 (RM) so as to carry out a therapeutic group-living program for troubled youth - A land use of this nature was a discretionary use under the RM's Zoning Bylaw - The RM rejected Eagle's Nest's discretionary use application - Eagle's Nest applied for judicial review - The chambers judge dismissed the application - Eagle's Nest appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The chambers judge did not correctly apply the standard of reasonableness to find that the decision was reasonable - While the chambers judge identified reasonableness as the standard of review, for his substantive review of the RM council's decision, the court failed to see where the chambers judge actually conducted such a review - Nowhere did he conclude that the decision was, in fact, reasonable - However, the court found that the result was nonetheless correct - The RM council's reasons and the record disclosed that the RM's decision was within the range of acceptable outcomes - The rejection of Eagle's Nest's discretionary use application was an outcome clearly open to the RM council on the evidence before it and on its authority under the Zoning Bylaw and the Planning and Development Act, 2007 - Although the chambers judge erred in his review of the RM council's decision, he nevertheless reached the correct result - The RM council's rejection of Eagle's Nest's discretionary use application resulted from a just exercise of power and was reasonable - See paragraphs 35 to 55.

Land Regulation - Topic 2681

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - Judicial review - Practice - General (incl. standard of review) - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 423

Councils - Decisions of - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 428

Councils - Decisions of - Duty of fairness - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 430

Councils - Decisions of - Reasons - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Counsel:

Jay Watson, for the appellant;

Candice Grant, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 27, 2016, before Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on February 11, 2016, including the following opinions:

Caldwell, J.A. (Herauf, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 56;

Richards, C.J.S., dissenting - see paragraphs 57 to 104.