Gilbert v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (South County Intermunicipal) et al., 2014 ABCA 84
| Judge | Conrad, J.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Alberta) |
| Subject Matter | LAND REGULATION,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,PRACTICE |
| Citation | 2014 ABCA 84,[2014] A.R. Uned. 48,[2014] A.R. Uned. 48 (CA) |
| Date | 03 March 2014 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
3 practice notes
-
R v PO,
...evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as I have stated earlier. [216] Our Court of Appeal discussed “mixed witness” principles in R v Ryan, 2014 ABCA 84 at para The situation is slightly more complicated where a Crown witness offers testimony which both implicates and exculpates the accused, ......
-
Clearwater Cottages Ltd. v Clearwater County Subdivision and Development Appeal Boar, 2020 ABCA 6
...having regard to the applicable standard of review: Gilbert v South Country (Intermunicipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2014 ABCA 84 at para 10. For the reasons that follow, none of the proposed grounds satisfy the test for the granting of permission to Grounds for Appeal [7]......
-
Rossdale Community League v Edmonton (City, 2017 ABCA 90
...applicant, or important to planning law generally: Gilbert v South Country (Intermunicipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2014 ABCA 84 at para. 10. The standard of review is relevant to deciding whether permission to appeal should be granted. Decisions of the Board on the interp......
3 cases
-
R v PO,
...evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as I have stated earlier. [216] Our Court of Appeal discussed “mixed witness” principles in R v Ryan, 2014 ABCA 84 at para The situation is slightly more complicated where a Crown witness offers testimony which both implicates and exculpates the accused, ......
-
Clearwater Cottages Ltd. v Clearwater County Subdivision and Development Appeal Boar, 2020 ABCA 6
...having regard to the applicable standard of review: Gilbert v South Country (Intermunicipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2014 ABCA 84 at para 10. For the reasons that follow, none of the proposed grounds satisfy the test for the granting of permission to Grounds for Appeal [7]......
-
Rossdale Community League v Edmonton (City, 2017 ABCA 90
...applicant, or important to planning law generally: Gilbert v South Country (Intermunicipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2014 ABCA 84 at para. 10. The standard of review is relevant to deciding whether permission to appeal should be granted. Decisions of the Board on the interp......