Heppner v. Alberta, (1977) 6 A.R. 154 (CA)

• Judge: Lieberman, Moir and Steer, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 16, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 6 A.R. 154 (CA)

Heppner v. Alta. (1977), 6 A.R. 154 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Heppner v. Province of Alberta

Indexed As: Heppner v. Alberta

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

Lieberman, Moir and Steer, JJ.A.

September 16, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose our of an application for a declaration that a regulation made pursuant to the Department of the Environment Act was invalid. The trial judge dismissed the application.

On appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the regulation in question was declared invalid.

Statutes - Topic 5367

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Regulations, validity of - Ultra vires - Whether the purpose of the regulation was authorized by the empowering statute - The Alberta Lieutenant Governor in Council enacted a regulation pursuant to the Department of the Environment Act - The regulation designated land on the outskirts of the City of Edmonton, Alberta as a Restricted Development Area - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the purpose of the regulation was to create a transportation and utility corridor - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that such a purpose was not authorized by the Department of the Environment Act and that the regulation was invalid.

Statutes - Topic 5362

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Regulations, validity of - General principles - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that there is a presumption that subordinate legislation is enacted within the authority and terms of the empowering statute - See paragraph 25.

Statutes - Topic 5370

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Regulations, validity of - What evidence can a court consider in determining the validity of regulations - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that a court is entitled to consider documents and the testimony of officers of the authority in determining the validity of regulations - See paragraph 27.

Statutes - Topic 5362

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Regulations, validity of - General principles - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that subordinate legislation must, in order to be valid, fall within the terms of the empowering statute - See paragraph 22.

Cases Noticed:

Hartley v. Mason (1902), 32 S.C.R. 575, folld. [para. 22].

Re Price Bros. and Company and the Board of Commerce of Canada (1920), 60 S.C.R. 265, folld. [para. 23].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, folld. [para. 24].

County of Newell No. 4 and M.D. of Newell No. 28 v. Standard Gravel and Surfacing of Canada Limited (1954), 12 W.W.R. 166, folld. [para. 25].

McEldowney v. Forde, [1929] 2 All E.R. 1039, folld. [para. 26].

La Rush v. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (1967), 66 D.L.R.(2d) 310, folld. [para. 27].

Re Doctors Hospital and Minister of Health et al. (1968), 68 D.L.R.(3d) 220, folld. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Department of the Environment Act, S.A. 1971, c. 24, sect. 15(1) [para. 8].

Department of the Environment Act Regulations, Regulation 262/76, Order-in-Council 1062/76 [para. 16].

Counsel:

D.G. Ingram, for the appellant;

A.P. Hnatiuk, for the Province of Alberta.

This appeal was heard by LIBERMAN, MOIR and STEER, JJ.A. The judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal was delivered by LIEBERMAN, J.A., at Edmonton, Alberta on September 16, 1977.