Edmonton Flying Club et al. v. Edmonton (City), 2013 ABQB 421

• Judge: Hillier, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 28, 2013
• Citations: 2013 ABQB 421;(2013), 567 A.R. 101 (QB)

Edmonton Flying Club v. Edmonton (2013), 567 A.R. 101 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. AU.065

Edmonton Flying Club and 1222663 Alberta Ltd. (applicants) v. The City of Edmonton (respondent)

(1203-17058)

Hamilton Aviation Ltd. and Air Spray (1967) Ltd. (applicants) v. City of Edmonton (respondent)

(1303-04525)

Airco Aircraft Charters Ltd. (applicants) v. City of Edmonton (respondent)

(1203-18110; 2013 ABQB 421)

Indexed As: Edmonton Flying Club et al. v. Edmonton (City)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Hillier, J.

July 23, 2013.

Summary:

The applicant businesses all operated businesses at the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA) under long term leases. The City of Edmonton owned the lands and, in 1996, leased the lands to the Edmonton Regional Airport Authority for 56 years. The City developed an area redevelopment plan (ARP), which it adopted by bylaw. After acquiring some of the leasehold interests from other businesses by negotiations, the City passed an expropriation resolution to close the ECCA and redevelop the lands for residential use. The businesses were each given a Notice of Intention to Expropriate. The businesses applied for judicial review to quash the bylaw and resolution, arguing that "(i) the City erred in adopting the area redevelopment plan (ARP) by bylaw because the ARP does not comply with legislative requirements; (ii) the City acted in bad faith adopting the Bylaw; (iii) the Bylaw was passed for an improper purpose; (iv) the Bylaw is manifestly unfair and unjust; (v) the Resolution is similarly flawed; and (vi) the City has no jurisdiction to close the ECCA as this is an area exclusively within federal jurisdiction".

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications for judicial review.

Municipal Law - Topic 1422

Powers of municipalities - Respecting land - Development or redevelopment of - The applicants operated businesses at the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA) under long term leases - The City of Edmonton owned the lands, which it leased to the Edmonton Regional Airport Authority - The City developed an area redevelopment plan (ARP), which it adopted by bylaw - After acquiring some of the leasehold interests from other businesses by negotiations, the City passed an expropriation resolution to close the ECCA and redevelop the lands for residential use - The businesses were each given a Notice of Intention to Expropriate - The businesses applied for judicial review to quash the bylaw and resolution, arguing that "(i) the City erred in adopting the area redevelopment plan (ARP) by bylaw because the ARP does not comply with legislative requirements; (ii) the City acted in bad faith adopting the Bylaw; (iii) the Bylaw was passed for an improper purpose; (iv) the Bylaw is manifestly unfair and unjust; (v) the Resolution is similarly flawed; and (vi) the City has no jurisdiction to close the ECCA as this is an area exclusively within federal jurisdiction" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The bylaw met the minimum mandatory requirements of s. 635(c) of the Municipal Government Act, including how the objectives of the plan were proposed to be achieved, the proposed land uses and proposals for land acquisitions - The bylaw was the result of considerable study and public consultation - The ARP, which supported the bylaw, was not inconsistent with the Municipal Development Plan or any other plan - Neither the ARP nor the bylaw were adopted in bad faith or for an improper purpose - The argument that only the federal government had jurisdiction to close the ECCA was speculative where the argument was not previously raised and the Attorney General of Canada was not even a party to the proceeding - See paragraphs 73 to 179.

Municipal Law - Topic 1495

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Expropriation - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1422 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3844

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Invalid purpose - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1422 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3853

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Lack of good faith - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1422 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3854

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Unfairness - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1422 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3855

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Abuse of powers, unreasonable, unfair or oppressive - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1422 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3861

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Omission of requirements of empowering statute - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1422 ].

Cases Noticed:

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 64].

Okotoks (Town) v. Foothills No. 31 (Municipal District) et al. (2013), 553 A.R. 309; 583 W.A.C. 309; 2013 ABCA 222, refd to. [para. 68].

Urban Development Institute v. Rockyview No. 44 (Municipal District) (2002), 321 A.R. 253; 2002 ABQB 651, refd to. [para. 74].

Okotoks (Town) v. Foothills No. 31 (Municipal District) et al. (2012), 532 A.R. 237; 2012 ABQB 53, refd to. [para. 75].

Henderson et al. v. Saskatoon (City) et al. (2008), 318 Sask.R. 9; 2008 SKQB 135, refd to. [para. 75].

United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485; 318 N.R. 170; 346 A.R. 4; 320 W.A.C. 4; 2004 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 76].

Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 5; 425 N.R. 22; 316 B.C.A.C. 1; 537 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 76].

Broda v. Edmonton (City) (1989), 102 A.R. 255 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 77].

Valdun Developments Ltd. v. Calgary (City) (1997), 200 A.R. 19; 146 W.A.C. 19; 1997 ABCA 134, refd to. [para. 77].

Northland Material Handling Inc. et al. v. Parkland (County) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 448; 100 M.P.L.R.(4th) 277; 2012 ABQB 407, refd to. [para. 77].

Nor-Chris Holdings Inc. v. Sturgeon (County) (2013), 559 A.R. 159; 2013 ABQB 184, refd to. [para. 77].

Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; 251 N.R. 42; 132 B.C.A.C. 298; 215 W.A.C. 298; 2000 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 77].

Kadar v. Edmonton Municipal Council et al., [2010] A.R. Uned. 304; 2010 ABCA 260, refd to. [para. 77].

Costello and Dickhoff v. Calgary (City), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 14; 38 N.R. 179; 41 A.R. 318, refd to. [para. 79].

Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority v. Dell Holdings Ltd., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 32; 206 N.R. 321; 97 O.A.C. 81; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 206, refd to. [para. 79].

Fouillard v. Ellice (Rural Municipality) (2007), 220 Man.R.(2d) 113; 407 W.A.C. 113; 2007 MBCA 108, leave to appeal denied (2008), 385 N.R. 384 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 83].

Dales Properties Ltd. v. Surrey (City), [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1196; 323 D.L.R.(4th) 438; 2010 BCSC 1196, refd to. [para. 83].

Goodtrack v. Waverley No. 44 (Rural Municipality) (2012), 408 Sask.R. 36; 46 Admin. L.R.(5th) 336; 2012 SKQB 413, refd to. [para. 84].

RSJ Holdings Inc. v. London (City), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 588; 364 N.R. 362; 226 O.A.C. 375; 2007 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 89].

Associated Cab Limousine Ltd. et al. v. Calgary (City) (2009), 457 A.R. 124; 457 W.A.C. 124; 2009 ABCA 181, refd to. [para. 89].

London Lane Industrial Park Ltd. v. Richmond (City) et al. (2005), 216 B.C.A.C. 247; 356 W.A.C. 247; 258 D.L.R.(4th) 698; 2005 BCCA 452, refd to. [para. 91].

Grosvenor et al. v. East Luther Grand Valley (Township) (2007), 219 O.A.C. 381; 84 O.R.(3d) 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

Municipal Parking Corp. v. Toronto (City), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. S06; 314 D.L.R.(4th) 642 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 92].

Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 93].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 536; 407 N.R. 102; 2010 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 94].

Koslowski v. West Vancouver (District) (1981), 122 D.L.R.(3d) 440 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 135].

Cambridge Leaseholds Ltd. v. Toronto (City) (No. 2), [1973] 3 O.R. 395; 37 D.L.R.(3d) 60 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 135].

Magee v. Calgary (City) (1979), 103 D.L.R.(3d) 686 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 138].

Alexander v. Huntsvill (Village), [1894] O.J. No. 236 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 143].

Macartney v. Haldimand (County), [1905] O.J. No. 222 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 143].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Toronto (City), [1902] O.J. No. 392, refd to. [para. 143].

Misty Mountain Charters Ltd. et al. v. Revelstoke (City), [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1246; 75 M.P.L.R.(4th) 221; 2012 BCSC 1246, refd to. [para. 148].

Landreville v. Boucherville, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 801; 22 N.R. 407, refd to. [para. 149].

Chernipeski et al. v. Lacombe (Town) (1996), 192 A.R. 389 (Q.B.), affd. (1998), 228 A.R. 111; 188 W.A.C. 111; 1998 ABCA 344, refd to. [para. 153].

Chippewas of Saugenn First Nation v. Keppel (Township) (1994), 117 D.L.R.(4th) 419 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 153].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Laferrière (2008), 48 M.P.L.R.(4th) 26; 2008 QCCA 427, refd to. [para. 174].

R. v. Varga (1979), 27 O.R.(2d) 274 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 174].

Statutes Noticed:

Expropriation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-13, sect. 6(1), sect. 6(2), sect. 8(1), sect. 8(5) [para. 57].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rogers, Ian MacFee, The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed. 1971) (2009 Looseleaf), vol. 2, p. 1063 [para. 143].

Counsel:

Jack N. Agrios, Q.C., for the applicants, Edmonton Flying Club, 1222663 Alberta Ltd., Hamilton Aviation Ltd. and Air Spray (1967) Ltd.;

Sheila McNaughtan, Q.C., and Sean Ward, for the applicant, Airco Aircraft Charters Ltd.;

Cameron Ashmore and Bradley Savoury, for the respondent, City of Edmonton.

This application was heard on June 28, 2013, before Hillier, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on July 23, 2013.