Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al., 2009 ABCA 65

JudgeConrad, Berger and Slatter, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)
Case DateNovember 27, 2008
Citations2009 ABCA 65;(2009), 448 A.R. 31 (CA)

Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (2009), 448 A.R. 31 (CA);

      447 W.A.C. 31

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. MR.008

Emeric Holdings Inc. (appellant/applicant) v. The City of Edmonton and the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board of the City of Edmonton (respondents/respondents)

(0703-0083-AC; 2009 ABCA 65)

Indexed As: Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Conrad, Berger and Slatter, JJ.A.

February 27, 2009.

Summary:

In 1996, the city demolished a building on three lots in the downtown core. The zoning did not allow non-accessory parking without a development permit. The city used the lots as non-accessory parking under a lease with Expert Parking Inc. which required Expert Parking to obtain a development permit. In 1999, the lots were sold to Malcan Holdings Ltd. On the sale, the city confirmed that there were no defaults in the performance of the lease with Expert Parking. In 2003, Malcan sold the lots to Emeric Holdings Inc. In 2006, acting on a complaint from an adjacent landowner, the city issued stop orders to Emeric, directing it to cease using the lots for non-accessory parking without a development permit. Emeric appealed to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board. The Board dismissed the appeal. Emeric sought leave to appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at [2007] A.R. Uned. 327, granted leave to appeal. The appeal proceeded.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Slatter, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The Board's order was reversed and the stop orders were vacated.

Land Regulation - Topic 2801

Land use control - Exemptions - Nonconforming use - Use not conforming to zoning bylaw - In 1996, the city demolished a building on three lots in the downtown core - The zoning did not allow non-accessory parking without a development permit - The city used the lots as non-accessory parking under a lease with Expert Parking Inc. which required Expert Parking to obtain a development permit - In 1999, the lots were sold to Malcan Holdings Ltd. - On the sale, the city confirmed that there were no defaults in the performance of the lease with Expert Parking - In 2003, Malcan sold the lots to Emeric Holdings Inc. - In 2006, acting on a complaint from an adjacent landowner, the city issued stop orders to Emeric, directing it to cease using the lots for non-accessory parking without a development permit - Emeric appealed to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, asserting that it did not require a permit as it enjoyed a legal non-conforming use - The Board dismissed the appeal, concluding that no development permit had ever been issued and that there was no evidence that the non-accessory parking commenced at a time when it was a permitted use, thereby making the continuance of that use a nonconforming use within s. 643 of the Municipal Government Act - Emeric appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The city bore the onus of proving that it was entitled to the stop orders it issued - The Board erroneously imposed a burden on Emeric to demonstrate that a development officer would have or should have dispensed with requiring his employer, the city, to obtain a development permit - The evidence was clear and unequivocal that the city over time licensed non-accessory parking on the lots - That, and the city's confirmation on the sale to Malcan that there were no defaults satisfied the evidential burden on Emeric - The legal burden then rested with the city to establish on a balance of probabilities that the stop orders should be sustained - That burden was not discharged - The Board's order was reversed - The stop orders were vacated - See paragraphs 1 to 23.

Land Regulation - Topic 3947

Land use control - Remedies - Injunctions (incl. cease and desist orders) - [See Land Regulation - Topic 2801 ].

Cases Noticed:

Lor-Al Springs Ltd. et al. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Ponoka (County)) et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 149; 234 W.A.C. 149; 90 Alta. L.R.(3d) 52; 2000 ABCA 299, refd to. [paras. 8, 39].

Goodrich et al. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Flagstaff (County)) et al. (2002), 317 A.R. 289; 284 W.A.C. 289; 9 Alta. L.R.(4th) 54; 2002 ABCA 293, refd to. [paras. 8, 39].

Canada Lands Co. CLC Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2005), 367 A.R. 180; 346 W.A.C. 180; 46 Alta. L.R.(4th) 72; 2005 ABCA 218, refd to. [paras. 8, 39].

Coventry Homes Inc. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Beaumont (Town)) et al. (2001), 277 A.R. 278; 242 W.A.C. 278; 2001 ABCA 49, refd to. [paras. 9, 39].

Lamont (Town) v. Renyk (1998), 233 A.R. 393; 1998 ABQB 742, refd to. [paras. 17, 42].

R. v. Manship Holdings Ltd. (2007), 262 N.S.R.(2d) 273; 839 A.P.R. 273; 2007 NSSC 320, refd to. [paras. 17, 43].

R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 443; 88 N.R. 90; 56 Man.R.(2d) 92, refd to. [paras. 17, 43].

R. v. Lee's Poultry Ltd. (1985), 7 O.A.C. 100; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 539 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Richmond Hill (Town) v. Miller Paving Ltd. (1978), 22 O.R.(2d) 779; 94 D.L.R.(3d) 145 (H.C.), refd to. [paras. 21, 42].

Newell No. 4 (County) v. Dola, [2003] A.R. Uned. 731; 6 M.P.L.R.(4th) 292; 2003 ABCA 371, refd to. [para. 37].

1022049 Alberta Ltd. v. Medicine Hat (City) (2007), 404 A.R. 54; 394 W.A.C. 54; 71 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; 2007 ABCA 108, refd to. [para. 37].

Parkland (County) v. Barakat Industries Ltd. et al. (2004), 370 A.R. 1; 45 Alta. L.R.(4th) 312; 2004 ABQB 822, refd to. [para. 37].

Pawlowski et al. v. Calgary (City) (2008), 445 A.R. 18; 48 M.P.L.R.(4th) 106; 2008 ABQB 267, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 37].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 38].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 38].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 40].

Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council) - see Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé.

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 40].

McLeod et al. v. Alberta Securities Commission et al. (2006), 391 A.R. 121; 377 W.A.C. 121; 61 Alta. L.R.(4th) 201; 2006 ABCA 231, refd to. [para. 40].

Ha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] 3 F.C.R. 195; 316 N.R. 299; 2004 FCA 49, refd to. [para. 40].

Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2008), 437 A.R. 347; 433 W.A.C. 347; 91 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; 2008 ABCA 220, refd to. [para. 40].

Robins v. National Trust Co., [1927] A.C. 515 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

F.H. v. McDougall (2008), 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 297 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 44].

Saint-Romuald (Ville) v. Olivier et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 898; 275 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 45].

Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 47].

Neuman v. Parkland No. 3 (County), [1998] A.R. Uned. 88; 1998 ABCA 83, refd to. [para. 51].

Langley (Township) v. Wood (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 136; 206 W.A.C. 136; 67 B.C.L.R.(3d) 97; 1999 BCCA 260, refd to. [para. 51].

Pitt Meadows (District) v. Jones (Ron) Ltd. (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 57; 323 W.A.C. 57; 28 B.C.L.R.(4th) 324; 2004 BCCA 277, refd to. [para. 51].

Murray v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Wheatland (County)) (2007), 422 A.R. 123; 415 W.A.C. 123; 2007 ABCA 424, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 65].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Laux, Frederick A., Planning Law and Practice in Alberta (3rd Ed. 2002), p. 15-25 [para. 11].

Laux, Frederick A., Planning Law and Practice in Alberta (3rd Ed. 2002) (Looseleaf Update), paras. 15.2(6)(b) [para. 51]; 15.3(1) [para. 41].

Counsel:

J.W. Murphy, Q.C., for the appellant/applicant;

D.G. Lopushinsky, for the respondent, the City of Edmonton.

This appeal was heard on November 27, 2008, by Conrad, Berger and Slatter, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. On February 27, 2009, the court's reasons for judgment were filed with the following opinions:

Berger, J.A. (Conrad, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 23;

Slatter, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 24 to 65.

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • 1694192 Alberta Ltd. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Lac La Biche (County)) et al., 2014 ABCA 319
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • May 27, 2014
    ...Board (Edmonton) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 302 ; 2012 ABCA 254 , refd to. [para. 18]. Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2009), 448 A.R. 31; 447 W.A.C. 31 ; 2009 ABCA 65 , refd to. [para. Maduke et al. v. Leduc (County) No. 25 et al., [2010] A.R. Uned. 523 ; 2010 Carswell......
  • 864475 Alberta Ltd. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton (City)), 2011 ABCA 163
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • May 19, 2011
    ...(City) et al. (2009), 446 A.R. 185; 442 W.A.C. 185; 2009 ABCA 29, refd to. [para. 17]. Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2009), 448 A.R. 31; 447 W.A.C. 31; 2009 ABCA 65, refd to. [para. Moncrieff v. Brazeau (County) et al. (2009), 464 A.R. 205; 467 W.A.C. 205; 2009 ABCA 329, r......
  • World Health Edmonton Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al., 2014 ABCA 332
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • October 7, 2014
    ...Calgary (City) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 538 ; 2012 ABCA 309 , refd to. [para. 26]. Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2009), 448 A.R. 31; 447 W.A.C. 31 ; 2009 ABCA 65 , refd to. [para. Carleo Investments Ltd. v. Strathcona (County) et al., [2014] A.R. Uned. 304 ; 2014 AB......
  • R. v. Singh,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • March 28, 2023
    ...[23]       As Slatter J.A. trenchantly observed in Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City), 2009 ABCA 65, at para. 45 (dissenting), it would not make much sense to allow non-conforming or illegal uses to continue indefinitely, based upon “doubt......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • 1694192 Alberta Ltd. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Lac La Biche (County)) et al., 2014 ABCA 319
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • May 27, 2014
    ...Board (Edmonton) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 302 ; 2012 ABCA 254 , refd to. [para. 18]. Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2009), 448 A.R. 31; 447 W.A.C. 31 ; 2009 ABCA 65 , refd to. [para. Maduke et al. v. Leduc (County) No. 25 et al., [2010] A.R. Uned. 523 ; 2010 Carswell......
  • 864475 Alberta Ltd. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton (City)), 2011 ABCA 163
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • May 19, 2011
    ...(City) et al. (2009), 446 A.R. 185; 442 W.A.C. 185; 2009 ABCA 29, refd to. [para. 17]. Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2009), 448 A.R. 31; 447 W.A.C. 31; 2009 ABCA 65, refd to. [para. Moncrieff v. Brazeau (County) et al. (2009), 464 A.R. 205; 467 W.A.C. 205; 2009 ABCA 329, r......
  • World Health Edmonton Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al., 2014 ABCA 332
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • October 7, 2014
    ...Calgary (City) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 538 ; 2012 ABCA 309 , refd to. [para. 26]. Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2009), 448 A.R. 31; 447 W.A.C. 31 ; 2009 ABCA 65 , refd to. [para. Carleo Investments Ltd. v. Strathcona (County) et al., [2014] A.R. Uned. 304 ; 2014 AB......
  • R. v. Singh,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • March 28, 2023
    ...[23]       As Slatter J.A. trenchantly observed in Emeric Holdings Inc. v. Edmonton (City), 2009 ABCA 65, at para. 45 (dissenting), it would not make much sense to allow non-conforming or illegal uses to continue indefinitely, based upon “doubt......
  • 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