Gendre v. Fort Macleod (Town) et al., [2015] A.R. TBEd. OC.038

• Judge: Nixon, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: Friday June 26, 2015
• Citations: [2015] A.R. TBEd. OC.038;2015 ABQB 623

Gendre v. Fort Macleod, [2015] A.R. TBEd. OC.038

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. OC.038

Rene Gendre (applicant) v. Council of the Town of Fort Macleod and Town of Fort Macleod (respondents)

(1406 00984; 2015 ABQB 623)

Indexed As: Gendre v. Fort Macleod (Town) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Lethbridge

Nixon, J.

October 8, 2015.

Summary:

Gendre was the Mayor of the Town of Fort Macleod. The Town Council removed the Mayor's authority to chair Council meetings, sign bylaws and call special meetings. Council also removed the Mayor from boards and committees and restricted him from attending meetings representing the Town or Council and acting as its official spokesman. Council took these actions by passing a number of resolutions and a new procedural bylaw. The Mayor asked the court to declare the resolutions and the bylaw invalid pursuant to s. 536(1) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) on the basis that Council acted in bad faith and, therefore, outside its jurisdiction. He asserted that his colleagues on Council acted for the improper purpose of punishing him for expressing opinions contrary to theirs and to those of Town administration. He said that Council acted for the improper purpose of attempting to silence him because he has been critical of Town administration and had been advocating for change to Town policies and procedures.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. The court stated that "the Mayor has not established that Council acted in bad faith or otherwise operated outside its jurisdiction. Having acted within its jurisdiction, the standard of review of Council's actions is patent unreasonableness. Actions taken by a municipal council within its jurisdiction are entitled to deference. A court must not interfere unless it can be said that a council's actions were such that no reasonable council would take. That cannot be said of Council's actions here. Council was faced with a difficult issue, which it sought to resolve in various ways. Council was in the best position to weigh the competing circumstances in the context of the history of the difficulties between the parties in order to determine the governance structure that best addressed its needs".

Municipal Law - Topic 404

Councils - Resolutions - Authority for - See paragraphs 27 to 39.

Municipal Law - Topic 411

Councils - Resolutions - Quashing of - Grounds - Bad faith - See paragraphs 40 to 57.

Municipal Law - Topic 420

Councils - Resolutions - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - See paragraphs 21 to 26.

Municipal Law - Topic 3389

Bylaws - Enactment - Authority - General - See paragraphs 27 to 39.

Municipal Law - Topic 3853

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Lack of good faith - See paragraphs 40 to 57.

Municipal Law - Topic 3884

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Judicial review - Practice - Standard of review - See paragraphs 21 to 26.

Counsel:

James S. Peacock, Q.C., and Marc Matras (Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP), for the applicant;

Derek King and Alison Espetveidt (Brownlee LLP), for the respondents.

This application was heard on April 7 and June 26, 2015, before Nixon, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Lethbridge, who delivered the following judgment on October 8, 2015.