Hazkar Developments Inc v Cochrane (Town), 2019 ABQB 552
| Judge | Honourable Mr. Justice J.T. McCarthy |
| Citation | 2019 ABQB 552 |
| Docket Number | 1901 00745 |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Date | 22 July 2019 |
-
- 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
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
2 practice notes
-
SM v Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director),
...affected by the appeal. [79] The words “directly affected” were recently interpreted in Hazkar Developments Inc v Cochrane (Town), 2019 ABQB 552 [Hazkar], where this Court considered the statutory requirement to serve “directly affected” parties on a judicial review application. The Court c......
-
Kainaiwa/Blood Tribe v Alberta,
...The meaning and application of Rule 3.15 have been considered in Alberta jurisprudence. 41 In Hazkar Developments Inc v Cochrane (Town), 2019 ABQB 552, Justice McCarthy addressed the meaning of “directly affected” at paras 44 and 45: I have been provided with no authority that defines “dire......
2 cases
-
SM v Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director),
...affected by the appeal. [79] The words “directly affected” were recently interpreted in Hazkar Developments Inc v Cochrane (Town), 2019 ABQB 552 [Hazkar], where this Court considered the statutory requirement to serve “directly affected” parties on a judicial review application. The Court c......
-
Kainaiwa/Blood Tribe v Alberta,
...The meaning and application of Rule 3.15 have been considered in Alberta jurisprudence. 41 In Hazkar Developments Inc v Cochrane (Town), 2019 ABQB 552, Justice McCarthy addressed the meaning of “directly affected” at paras 44 and 45: I have been provided with no authority that defines “dire......