Hall et al. v. New Brunswick et al.,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Léger, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2015 NBQB 47
• Citation: (2015), 432 N.B.R.(2d) 186 (TD),2015 NBQB 47,432 NBR(2d) 186,(2015), 432 NBR(2d) 186 (TD),432 N.B.R.(2d) 186
• Subject Matter: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
• Date: 28 October 2014
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)

Hall v. N.B. (2015), 432 N.B.R.(2d) 186 (TD);

    432 R.N.-B.(2e) 186; 1128 A.P.R. 186

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version only]

[Version en langue française seulement]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.018

Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.018

Eric Hall et Services Hall ltée Hall Services Ltd. (requérants) v. La Province du Nouveau Brunswick représentée par le Ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Aquaculture et des Pêches et le Ministère des Ressources Naturelles (intimée)

(BM/18/2014; 2015 NBBR 47; 2015 NBQB 47)

Indexed As: Hall et al. v. New Brunswick et al.

Répertorié: Hall et al. v. New Brunswick et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Bathurst

Léger, J.

February 12, 2015.

Summary:

Résumé:

The applicants were wild blueberry producers. In September 2007, they made a request to the respondent New Brunswick provincial government for a Crown land lease which remained unanswered until August 2010, when it was denied. In October 2007, they made a second request for a Crown land lease, which they asserted remained unanswered. In May 2014, the applicants applied for judicial review with respect to their requests for land leases. They asserted that the respondent violated its obligation of procedural fairness. The respondent moved to dismiss the application, arguing that it was filed out of time. The applicants moved for an extension of time to file the application.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the applicants' motion. The court allowed the respondent's motion and dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3342

Judicial review - Practice - Limitation period - The applicants were wild blueberry producers - In September 2007, they made a request to the respondent New Brunswick provincial government for a Crown land lease which remained unanswered until August 2010, when it was denied - In October 2007, they made a second request for a Crown land lease, which they asserted remained unanswered - On May 9, 2014, the applicants applied for judicial review with respect to their requests for land leases - They asserted that the respondent violated its obligation of procedural fairness - The respondent moved to dismiss the application, arguing that it was filed out of time - The applicants moved for an extension of time to file the application - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the applicants' motion - The court allowed the respondent's motion and dismissed the application - The application was out of time - The evidence established that decisions (denials) had been rendered on or before February 26, 2014 - An extension of time could not be granted where there would be serious prejudice, particularly to those who had already received the land leases - Further, the applicants had not established exceptional circumstances that led to missing the delay.

Administrative Law - Topic 3342.1

Judicial review - General - Practice - Limitation period - Extension of - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3342 ].

Droit administratif - Cote 3342

Révision judiciaire - Généralités - Procédure - Délai de prescription - [Voir Administrative Law - Topic 3342 ].

Droit administratif - Cote 3342.1

Révision judiciaire - Procédure - Délai de prescription - Prolongation du délai - [Voir Administrative Law - Topic 3342.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick et al. v. LeBlanc et al. (2012), 398 N.B.R.(2d) 83; 1032 A.P.R. 83; 2013 NBCA 9, refd to. [para. 22].

New Brunswick (Minister of Social Development) v. Couture et al. (2014), 421 N.B.R.(2d) 367; 1094 A.P.R. 367; 2014 NBCA 41, refd to. [para. 23].

Smith v. Human Rights Commission (N.B.) et al. (1999), 217 N.B.R.(2d) 336; 555 A.P.R. 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Christian E. Michaud, for the applicants;

Pierre R. Ouellette and Jean-François Dupuis, for the respondent.

These motions were heard on October 28, 2014, by Léger, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Bathurst, who delivered the following decision on February 12, 2015.