Edmonton (City) v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton (City)) et al., (2014) 584 A.R. 255

JudgeWakeling, J.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)
Case DateOctober 07, 2014
Citations(2014), 584 A.R. 255;2014 ABCA 340

Edmonton v. Dev. Appeal Bd. (2014), 584 A.R. 255; 623 W.A.C. 255 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. OC.081

City of Edmonton (respondent) v. City of Edmonton (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board) (respondent) and HV Nine Ltd. (respondent) and Urban Development Institute (applicant)

(1403-0130-AC; 2014 ABCA 340)

Indexed As: Edmonton (City) v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton (City)) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Wakeling, J.A.

October 20, 2014.

Summary:

The city's subdivision authority approved a developer's application to subdivide a parcel of land, subject to numerous conditions. Condition I(7) required the developer to provide to the city a portion of the land necessary for a light rail transit corridor for no consideration. The developer objected to condition I(7). The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board removed the condition. The city sought leave to appeal under s. 688(3) of the Municipal Government Act.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., in a decision reported at (2014), 584 A.R. 248; 623 W.A.C. 248, allowed the application. The Urban Development Institute applied for leave to intervene.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., allowed the application.

Practice - Topic 682

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Interest in subject matter - [See Practice - Topic 685 ].

Practice - Topic 685

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - On appeal - The city's subdivision authority approved a developer's application to subdivide a parcel of land, subject to, inter alia, condition I(7), which required the developer to provide to the city a portion of land necessary for a light rail transit corridor for no consideration - The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board removed condition I(7) - The city obtained leave to appeal under s. 688(3) of the Municipal Government Act - The Urban Development Institute applied for leave to intervene - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., allowed the application - The developer members of the Institute would be directly and significantly affected by the outcome of this appeal - Its members were responsible for the development of most of the raw land in the city - This was a direct and significant interest which justified granting intervenor status - As well, the Institute had a special expertise or perspective that would assist the court - See paragraphs 3 and 8 to 16.

Practice - Topic 686

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Where applicant may be adversely affected - [See Practice - Topic 685 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reference Re Sections 32 and 34 of the Worker's Compensation Act (Nfld.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 335; 96 N.R. 231; 76 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 185; 235 A.P.R. 185, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

Norcan Ltd. v. Lebrock, [1969] S.C.R. 665, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

R. v. Neve (L.) (1996), 184 A.R. 359; 122 W.A.C. 359 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

Winner v. S.M.T. (Eastern) Ltd., [1951] S.C.R. 887, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 7].

Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. et al. v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al., [2010] A.R. Uned. 236; 2010 ABCA 184, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 7].

Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al. v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Co., [2007] A.R. Uned. 150; 2007 ABCA 175, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 7].

Chiasson v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Co. - see Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al. v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Co.

R. v. Big M Drug Mart (1983), 49 A.R. 194; 5 D.L.R.(4th) 121 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 7].

United Transportation Union, Locals 1778 and 1923 et al. v. B.C. Rail Ltd. et al. (1990), 45 C.P.C.(2d) 33 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 7].

Iron v. Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment and Public Safety), [1993] 3 W.W.R. 309; 107 Sask.R. 297 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 7].

Temagami Wilderness Society v. Ontario (Minister of the Environment) et al. (1989), 33 O.A.C. 356 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 7].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Mullin (1985), 50 C.P.C. 298 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 8].

Royal Canadian Legion Norwood (Alberta) Branch 178 v. Edmonton (City) (1993), 141 A.R. 290; 46 W.A.C. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 9].

Mohr v. Scoffield (1991), 80 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 9].

Telus Communications Inc. et al. v. Telecommunications Workers Union et al. (2006), 401 A.R. 57; 391 W.A.C. 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 10].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 462; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 11].

R. v. Finta (I.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1138; 150 N.R. 370; 61 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 11].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 11].

Adler v. Ontario (1992), 8 O.R.(3d) 200 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 12].

Yellowknife Public Denominational District Education Authority et al. v. Euchner (2008), 425 A.R. 254; 418 W.A.C. 254 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 16].

Yellowknife Public Denominational District Education Authority et al. v. Northwest Territories - see Yellowknife Public Denominational District Education Authority et al. v. Euchner.

Knox et al. v. Conservative Party of Canada et al. (2007), 404 A.R. 383; 394 W.A.C. 383 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 16].

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 380 A.R. 301; 363 W.A.C. 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 16].

Canadian Labour Congress v. Bhindi (1985), 61 B.C.L.R. 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 17].

Norcan Ltd. v. Lebrock, [1969] S.C.R. 665, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 18].

Counsel:

M.S. Gunther, for the respondent, City of Edmonton;

P.A.L. Smith, Q.C. (no appearance), for the respondent, City of Edmonton (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board);

F.A. Laux, Q.C., for the respondent, HV Nine Ltd.;

J.A. Agrios, Q.C., for the applicant.

This application was heard on October 7, 2014, by Wakeling, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons for decision on October 20, 2014.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • R. v. Vallentgoed (D.J.C.), (2016) 612 A.R. 48
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 19, 2016
    ...N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 5]. Edmonton (City) v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton (City)) et al. (2014), 584 A.R. 255; 623 W.A.C. 255; 2014 ABCA 340, refd to. [para. Pedersen v. Thournout (2008), 432 A.R. 219; 424 W.A.C. 219; 2008 ABCA 192, refd to. [pa......
  • Edmonton Police Service v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 ABCA 428
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • December 21, 2021
    ...192 (CanLII) at para 3, 432 AR 219 (“Pedersen”), Edmonton (City) v Edmonton (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2014 ABCA 340 at paras 8-14; Stewart Estate (Re), 2014 ABCA 222 (CanLII) at para 5, 577 AR 57 (“Stewart Estate”); Styles v Canadian Association......
  • Bell Canada Inc. v. Calgary (City), 2019 ABCA 358
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • September 26, 2019
    ...that propose different tests for assessing intervention applications. In City of Edmonton v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, 2014 ABCA 340, ¶ 8; 584 A.R. 255, 258 I stated that “[a] single appeal judge may grant permission to intervene in an appeal if satisfied that the applicant ......
  • AC and JF v Alberta, 2020 ABCA 309
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • September 4, 2020
    ...some special expertise, perspective, or information that will help resolve the appeal: Edmonton (City) v Urban Development Institute, 2014 ABCA 340 at para 8; Hamm v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ABCA 389 at para 5; Papaschase Indian Band No 136 v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 ABCA 320 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • R. v. Vallentgoed (D.J.C.), (2016) 612 A.R. 48
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 19, 2016
    ...N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 5]. Edmonton (City) v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton (City)) et al. (2014), 584 A.R. 255; 623 W.A.C. 255; 2014 ABCA 340, refd to. [para. Pedersen v. Thournout (2008), 432 A.R. 219; 424 W.A.C. 219; 2008 ABCA 192, refd to. [pa......
  • Edmonton Police Service v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 ABCA 428
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • December 21, 2021
    ...192 (CanLII) at para 3, 432 AR 219 (“Pedersen”), Edmonton (City) v Edmonton (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2014 ABCA 340 at paras 8-14; Stewart Estate (Re), 2014 ABCA 222 (CanLII) at para 5, 577 AR 57 (“Stewart Estate”); Styles v Canadian Association......
  • Bell Canada Inc. v. Calgary (City), 2019 ABCA 358
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • September 26, 2019
    ...that propose different tests for assessing intervention applications. In City of Edmonton v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, 2014 ABCA 340, ¶ 8; 584 A.R. 255, 258 I stated that “[a] single appeal judge may grant permission to intervene in an appeal if satisfied that the applicant ......
  • AC and JF v Alberta, 2020 ABCA 309
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • September 4, 2020
    ...some special expertise, perspective, or information that will help resolve the appeal: Edmonton (City) v Urban Development Institute, 2014 ABCA 340 at para 8; Hamm v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ABCA 389 at para 5; Papaschase Indian Band No 136 v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 ABCA 320 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT